An Example of How Answers in Genesis Does Violence to the Bible, and Not Just Science

Recent discussions with young-earth creationists have illustrated well how young-earth creationists do serious harm to the Bible, and not only science, in their bizarre attempts to treat the Bible as though it were a scientific textbook and science textbooks as though they were someone’s Bible.

Take, for instance, the parallels that scholars have identified between days 1-3 and days 4-6 in Genesis 1, illustrated best by using a chart:

The first three days feature the creation of habitats, and the next three fill those habitats with inhabitants.

Here’s another diagram that highlights the connections in slightly more detail (ironically found on a site trying to dispute the parallelism in the passage!):

Others like it can be found on various web pages as well as in books and commentaries.

Now, let’s see what happens if Answers in Genesis decides that it wants to try to co-opt this into their twisted approach to the Bible and to science:

In their attempts to shoehorn science (or rather, their distorted and selective bits of science) into the passage, they make nonsense of the parallels. They not only remove the dome from day 2 (to facilitate their deceitful claim to take Genesis 1 literally in a manner that is not selective), but they focus on the creation of a habitable atmosphere in between the waters above and below on day 2, which leaves one with the impression that the sea creatures on day 5 ought to live in the sky. The Bible’s beautiful structure is treated by them as so much garbage, to be ridden roughshod over in their misguided attempt to hijack Scripture and science for their own twisted ends. Because they are not interested in exploring and highlighting what is actually in Scripture, but in using Scripture for their own ends.

Here’s another image of theirs I came across:

They misconstrue the Bible as though it were not the work of men – even though Paul doesn’t merely put his name in the author’s position on his letters, but emphasizes in 2 Corinthians 11 that he speaks there as a fool and not according to the Lord. Genesis 1, even if it were by Moses, would not then be beyond dispute, nor removed from the category of “work of a man.” But as it stands, it is anonymous, and includes elements which are pre-scientific and a structure which is naturally understood to be poetic in character, or at least not focused on chronology but rather on parallelism. Then they treat what nature – that is, from a Christian perspective, God’s creation – says as though it were mere human opinion. And the implicit message of the question at the bottom is that they are not in fact doing precisely what they accuse others of doing, namely twisting and changing scripture. Young-earth creationists take scissors and pen to the Bible (metaphorically, of course, using the Bible selectively and changing the meaning of words to suit their presuppositions), and add to this the sins of hypocrisy and lying.

Young-earth creationism is the work of charlatans who know little about either the Bible or science, and mislead the gullible. That would be sad enough. But as if their work turning the Bible and the Christian faith into a laughing stock were not enough, they also close some Christians’ ears to the voice of other Christians who actually do know something about the Bible or about the sciences. Thus they sow division in the body of Christ.

It would not at all surprise me to learn one day that key leaders in the young-earth creationist movement were atheists seeking to do harm to Christianity. If so, they have been very successful. But who knows – sometimes the foolish do great harm of their own misguided free will, saving their opponents the need to go to the trouble of sowing misinformation, falsehood and division. That is sadder still.

  • http://www.sparksandashes.com Paul

    A good post. Perhaps most distressing is the widespread abandonment of humility and charity (on both sides), as inquiry into exegesis and legitimate science continue. For more (and links to relevant NPR and CT coverage) visit http://sparksandashes.com/2011/10/18/whos-the-monkey-now-cynicism-love-and-human-origins/

    -Paul

  • Anonymous

    James, there is no mention of a dome in the bible. Perhaps you invented it?

    Also, there is no reason to conclude that sea creatures lived in the sky. It clearly says where they were placed (the seas) and that birds were created to fly in the sky. (firmament, heaven).

    The Bible is a historical book, not a science book and no one claims that it is a science book although there are scientifically accurate passages within it before anyone knew those were true.

    • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      Cdbren, perhaps you need to acknowledge that what you have been reading is not the Bible? This may help you at least understand the issue:

      http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Seely-Firmament-WTJ.htm 

      Please feel free to elaborate on your claim that ” there are scientifically accurate passages within it before anyone knew those were true.” I suspect that they will all turn out to be passages which use language into which you can try very hard to read later science, but which are perfectly intelligible and perhaps more easily understood to mean things that would have made sense to the author and readers in antiquity.

    • http://www.rethinkingao.com Mike Beidler

      cdbren,

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament

      Enjoy.

      Oh, yeah … birds are said to fly “on the face of” (NASB) or “across” (ESV) the firmament, not fly “in.” 

      • Anonymous

        Fly on the face of or across the sky.

        Hmm. I see no problem with that.

  • Anonymous

    cdbren,  Most modern translations of the bible change the meaning of the earlier versions (dome) in order to harmonize with current scientific knowledge.  Perhaps you would profit from some more study about this subject?

  • Cliff Martin

    cdbren,

    You can check out the links James and Mike provided, or you can simply study the Hebrew.

    Firmament = solid vault = dome. It would help this entire issue of how literally we should understand Genesis 1 if we agreed to simply translate the chapter literally, with terms easily understood. If we did that (what Biblical literalist would object?) we would be reading all about a dome which separates the water above from the water below, and into which the stars, sun and moon are set.

    think, Truman Show.

    It matters little whether you like this notion. It is quite simply what the Hebrew means. A true Bible scholar should welcome literal meanings. If we really interpreted Genesis 1 literally, we would be forced to acknowledge it mythical nature.

    • Anonymous

      Cliff, I have read that Wiki link before. The word means “spread out” or “expanse”. Maybe you should check that link yourself. I don’t see any mention of “dome” other than in the NRSV translation. 

      God was merely using (and the writer was using) a word that they had for the total area of the sky. 

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_(Judaism)

      • Anonymous

        I would recommend God and Evolution, Jay Richards

        http://www.youtube.com/user/DiscoveryInstitute#p/u/9/EFcItGH36-0

        Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells

        In the Beginning, Granville Sewell, Professor of mathematics, University of Texas.

        (I just ordered this one by the way)

        Also, Signature in the Cell, Dr. Stephen Meyer

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

          icons of evolution is useless as science. signature in the cell is about abiogenesis not ET. both have 100′s of critical reviews online to see why the are not good science. like most people here i’ve read most of the classic YECists materials, i have yet to find one to actually recommend as decent science. 

          read something worthwhile like
          Paradigms on Pilgrimage: Creationism, Paleontology and Biblical Interpretationby Stephen J. Godfreymy review at amazon is titled: worthwhile to read and to share, September 28, 2006

          or
          Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Scienceby Massimo Pigliuccimy review at amazon is titled:best book for an intro to the creation-evolution-design debate i’ve seen yet, April 13, 2006 i’ve quoted both a lot in these reviews so you can really see their value for these discussions

          • Anonymous

            Richard, all those books I listed are by people with high degrees and/or professors that are teaching at colleges. 

            It seems to me irrational that you would say it is bad science. I have seen lots of videos from the authors and I don’t find anything wrong with the science. 

            Perhaps it is that you don’t agree with the interpretations they present? That would have nothing to do with the actual science being done. 

            I would assume they would not be teaching if it was bad science?

            • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

              i am always surprised to see Christians support J.Wells, anyone who believes S.M.Moon is Christ doing the job right this time, is suspect in the very basis of his thinking processes. if presuppositions and basic worldview matter in science, he is certainly the case to apply it.

              no, Icons is just plain bad science. it is not a matter of interpretation.

            • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

              re:
              It seems to me irrational that you would say it is bad science. 

              how do we detect bad science?
              how do we detect bad theology?

              in the context of this discussion, about what the hebrew word translated as firmament into the english means to the ancient hebrews. if someone proposes light years to the stars, i know it is wrong. that is reading our modern science back into the ANE context of genesis. the simple literal naive observational eyewitness to the stars is that they are very close, that they differ not in distance but in brightness, the most common way in ancient times was to conceive of a dome with holes allowing the light of heaven through or a solid dome with lights hung in it. the depth and complexity of the universe is modern and very contrary to common sense, if someone proposes the ancients having elements of this scientific knowledge they are wrong=bad theology.

              in the case of icons, every element/chapter/issue has been refuted. that is bad science.
              in the case of signature, it is the argument from incredulity and the god of the gaps to solve the first cell problem. it is bad science, even if it is right, because it is a science stopper. God did it doesn’t allow a research program to try to answer the problems, even if it is true, that God poofed and the first cell was created, science can not cease looking for answers. that is bad science.

              • Anonymous

                Richard, I don’t see how that is reading into Genesis. Clearly it is not a dome with lights hung in it if those lights are for “signs, seasons, days and years”. Plus that the sun and moon were placed in this “firmament” as well. You assume ancient peoples never saw a comet? A shooting star? An eclipse? Or that they didn’t see the stars move positions? 

                Ancient Egyptians possibly even knew of other planets. 

                I have tried to do some research. Is there some indication other than you saying it that they thought it was a solid dome?

                I don’t see how thinking there is an intelligent creator would stop science. What I really think is that the idea of evolution from simple creatures to complex has hindered science. 

                • Beau Quilter

                  cdbren

                  To the ancients, planets were “wandering” stars, not fixed in the firmament as other stars appeared to be. That’s why many ancients considered these “wanderers” as gods. 

                  There were no telescopes to see them as anything other than bright points of light in the sky. When you say that “Ancient Egyptians possibly even knew of other planets.” What do you mean? We know they knew of other planets; are you saying that they knew that the planets were spherical worlds like the earth? What is your evidence for this?

                  • Anonymous

                    I mean they knew of them as moving different than the stars. Some not easily seen by the naked eye.

                    My main point is that saying ancient peoples considered the sky a solid dome with lights hanging in it is just false. 

                    • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      Cdbren, you are just making an assertion again. Just because you don’t want the Biblical authors to have meant their references to “windows of heaven” literally and don’t think that anyone in ancient times could have considered the sky a solid dome with lights in it does not make it so. Please provide evidence which counters that provided by John Walton in his recent book, which provides actual quotations from Ancient Near Eastern texts and from the Bible and supports the opposite of what you assert.

                    • Anonymous

                      I did present it from the bible itself. Stars, planets and the sun and moon were placed into this “firmament” which was incorrectly translated from “expanse”. Also, the stars were there for “seasons, years, months and days”. Not fixed or hanging on something solid.

                      John Walton’s views seem more a novel interpretation and not the primary interpretation through church history. I would not take one persons views as gospel. 

                      I suppose you don’t believe that before the sun, light was emanating from God and that the waters were moving so as to be a morning and evening?(A dark side and a light side on days 1-3.)

                      I believe that God could create everything in one nanosecond if he wanted to or take a hundred years. Or preform it in any way he pleased. In that respect, I believe he did give the creation account to whoever wrote Genesis in a way they could understand. In the same token I believe he created exactly as he said, in seven days and exactly as stated. (Obviously technical details left out as they would not be needed.) Otherwise God would be lying. (Taking into consideration God is real and those are God’s words.)

    • Ken Ham

      Firmament
      Firmament. In Scripture, the word denotes an expanse, a wide extent; for such is the signification of the Hebrew word. The original, therefore, does not convey the sense of solidity, but of stretching, extension; the great arch of expanse over our heads, in which are placed the atmosphere and the clouds, and in which the stars appear to be placed, and are really seen. — Webster.

      • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

        @e6a34a778dbbce35914a74cf67902426:disqus , one of your representatives, Terry Mortensen, came to our campus and made the same claim. He was kind enough to illustrate in the process that he didn’t even know enough of any Biblical language to recognize which language he was hearing. That you think the meaning of the Bible is to be determined by looking up an English word used in a translation you like in Webster’s dictionary tells a lot. That you ignore that the word came into English from Latin, and has a root meaning of “a support” and don’t mention any counter-evidence to your claim even in the dictionary you cite also says a lot about your character and your tactics.

  • http://onefuriousllama.com/ onefuriousllama

    It’s always terribly amusing when those who would defend the Bible as if it wasn’t a book full of bronze age creation myths, insist that you should study it a bit harder… just to find out that they know less about it than the person pointing out it’s ridiculousness.

    It is silly to state “there are scientifically accurate passages within it” and then to try and propose that the collection of all the passages are the truth. It’s like saying ” there are scientifically accurate passages within” the Harry Potter books; that doesn’t mean Harry Potter is the truth. 

  • Pingback: Xcntrik

  • Pingback: Kay Schwink

  • Just Sayin’

    “I sometimes wonder how many of those who pour their inane opinions about creationism into their young pupils’ ears ever consider the damage they are doing; not to my science, but to their religion. Why, when a student begins to learn the simple and convincing facts, rather than the fantasies, about how life emerged, should he believe anything else that his pastor, his rabbi or his imam has told him? Why build a philosophy based on fixed untruths, when we have so many truths, and so many things still to find out?” – Steve Jones
    More here:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8931518/Islam-Charles-Darwin-and-the-denial-of-science.html

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Kefgene, it has never been a matter of dispute that some translate the word that way, any more than it is a dispute that Jehovah’s Witnesses render theos as “a god” in John 1:1. Meaning of words is not determined by whether someone translates the word that way, or writes that English word next to the Hebrew word in an online interlinear, but what the lexical evidence is.

    I strongly recommend reading John Walton’s treatment of the topic. He actually would favor “expanse” for raqi’a – understanding it to mean the space created by the solid sky holding up the waters above. He’s an Evangelical, for what it’s worth.

    • Anonymous

      James, are you going with expanse now instead of dome? 

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Cdbren, what leads you to consider someone who didn’t know that whales are mammals to be capable of evaluating whether something is bad science or not?

    Since the vast majority of biologists teach evolution, then by your own logic one should assume that isn’t bad science, right? That most of the critics of mainstream biology have not studied biology since high school, on the other hand, seems germane.

    • Anonymous

      I don’t know why you keep lying about the whale thing. I was thinking fish when I stated that. The fact that you keep bringing it up shows you have nothing else to say about the main issues other than character attacks. This is the standard M.O. when someone is in deep trouble defending their points.

      • Beau Quilter

        cdbren

        It’s time to stop and think about what you are saying. For the first time on this blog you admit your whale mistake, and yet you call James a liar for bringing it up twice before you admit it? Who is really lying here?

        You accuse James of only addressing this point, when in fact James and others have answered every issue you raise. 

        You accuse James of lying. Really? It’s ironic that you accuse him of sinking to character attack, when you are the one displaying this “standard M.O.” in your own comment.

        • Anonymous

          Yeah, I’ve been doing it too on occasion in response only.

          James and others have not responded to many issues I have raised. They remained silent. 

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Well, the original idea for young earth creationism came from Seventh Day Adventists, with whom most Evangelicals also disagree, albeit not as strongly as with the Unification Church.

    Clearly young earth creationism trumps the unique identity of Jesus as the Christ and several other things that YECs allege to be more important to them than their antievolutionism.

    • Bolingme

      Dr. McGrath,

      It would behoove you to quit propagating the idea that YEC beliefs came from Seventh Day Adventists.  That is highly inaccurate and is merely an attempt to portray those who affirm a literal Genesis account of creation as being in the same camp as those who many in the evangelical community would label as being a cult (i.e. the Unification Church).

      Do you deny that YEC beliefs were held by many of the early church fathers?  Perhaps you should study the OT wisdom books with the clear connection made in those books between wisdom being present at creation, a concept clearly made by the Apostle John in his gospel.  To make the statement that YECs trump the unique identify of Jesus as the Christ tells me you have read nothing from AiG, CMI, or ICR as none of these organizations believe anything that negates the supremacy of God as outlined in Scripture.

      Your affinity for evolutionary dogma rather than practicing sound hermeneutics is rather clear in this and all of your other attacks against YEC positions.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

        re:
        It would behoove you to quit propagating the idea that YEC beliefs came from Seventh Day Adventists.  

        read
        _darwin’s forgotten defenders_  and numbers _on creationists_ for example to understand the modern historical development of YECism.

        the church reached a compromise with ET by the 1910′s, not in just the now growing liberal branches but the conservatives as well, evidence is b.b. warfield and j.g.machen in my tradition. even the much touted _fundamentals_ didn’t attack ET. as numbers shows well g.m.price resurrected the argument and it was injected into the conservative churches when morris wrote _the genesis flood_ in ~1964. it is thoroughly a SDA import into the conservative America churches that for various sociological reasons has become A BIG ISSUE™ like abortion, ordination of women and homosexual marriage in the conservative wing of Christianity.

        • Anonymous

          Richard that is “historical science” of the “distant past” and therefore that is just “people’s assumptions”. I define distant as anything before my birth :)

          PS have you heard of LastThursdayism?

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

            yes, i’ve always thought it was a verbal play off chesterton.
            i’ve used the term myself http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/omphalos-hypothesis-about-creation-12270/
            but prefer morton’s demon as an example.

            re:
            Richard that is “historical science” of the “distant past” and therefore that is just “people’s assumptions”. I define distant as anything before my birth :) 

            it’s interesting that you say this. i had actually included “before your birth” in my original posting here as a potential example of the barrier between recent and distant past. i believe it is the most natural way for people to make the distinction. i remember my dad’s face one evening as i asked him about the history of WW2, he looked at me and said-that’s not history, WW2 is real, i was there. now i react the same way to grandkids asking about vietnam *grin*

            as i see it, there is no distinction between recent and distant past possible. but i’m open to learning more, it’s interesting how natural we speak about it but how slippery it becomes with a bit of thought.

            re:
            red squares.

            ah! to see redly! now there’s a topic.

            • Anonymous

              Morton’s demon! I remember reading about it before, but never thought about it like that. Love it!

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

        re:
        It would behoove you to quit propagating the idea that YEC beliefs came from Seventh Day Adventists.  That is highly inaccurate and is merely an attempt to portray those who affirm a literal Genesis account of creation as being in the same camp as those who many in the evangelical community would label as being a cult (i.e. the Unification Church).

        if you look at James McGrath’s “interesting posts elsewhere” right hand sidebar, there is a reference to (dated dec 9th)
        http://scienceandcreation.blogspot.com/2011/12/meaning-of-literalism.html 
        where he quotes:
        http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14746700.2011.616001 
        “A search for Adam Revisited”
        where it states:
        -=”Around the time of the Scopes trial in the early twentieth century, there is no record of any biblical literalists within normative Christianity who interpreted the Bible as claiming a recent creation in six 24-hour days or that Noah’s flood had anything to do with how one should interpret the record of global stratigraphy. Indeed, literalists at that time saw Noah’s flood as a local phenomenon and ‘‘even the most literalistic Bible believers accepted the antiquity of life on Earth as revealed in the paleontological record.’’ The one exception to this general rule was the Seventh Day Adventists—a sect of Millerites who, after 1844 (and disillusioned by Christ’s failure to return), regrouped under the leadership and supernatural visions of the teenage prophetess Ellen G. White—a charismatic young woman ‘‘whose pronouncements Adventists placed on par with the Bible’’. White and her Seventh Day Adventist followers harbored no doubts about the correct reading of the early chapters of Genesis because in a trancelike vision White was ‘‘carried back to the creation’’ by God himself, ‘‘and was shown that the first week, in which God performed the work of creation in six [24 hour] days and rested on the seventh day, was just like every other week.’’ White likewise saw that during Noah’s flood, “=-…

        our host-J.McG, rightfully links to this argument, as an important link in the history of YECism-AiG-ICR et al.

        although, if you have better historical information than this, please share it. i’m sure many of J.McG’s readers would strive to read and understand it.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    I keep mentioning it only because it illustrates that you have the typical correlation between lack of knowledge about basic elementary science, and finding young-earth creationism persuasive. Someone who wanders into this conversation might or might not be well-informed enough about science to perceive that you are spouting nonsense about more complex matters of science. But if they see that you get even the basics wrong, maybe, just maybe, they will show greater wisdom than you have and actually learn something about biology before trying to evaluate one of its major theories.

    By the way, your statement about the whale would have been every bit as nonsensical even if you had said “fish”.

  • TJR

    cdbren, have you read the paper at the link James provided ?  It’s by Paul Seely and published in the Westminster Journal which is not given to publishing opinions that are not backed by facts. If you are trying to do some research check it out.
        tjr

  • http://www.sparksandashes.com Paul

    Top comment. And…. scene.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Cdbren, it is not one person’s view. It is what every single interpreter in the pre-modern era understood. Sometimes there were multiple solid heavens, the celestial spheres, once you get into the Ptolemaic worldview. But there is always something solid up there, whoever you ask, until relatively recently.

    Apparently you are as happy to make unsubstantiated assertions about the history of interpretation of the Bible and the history of science as you are about both the Bible and science.

  • Anonymous

    James, one other thing.

    Are you assuming that Genesis is the start of any sort of information about God? That neither oral historical stories or even written stories aside from Genesis were passed down from Adam, on to Noah and then from Noah’s family to succeeding generations?

    I know some make parallels to either Babylonian or Egyptian creation stories but providing the world wide flood was real, written records of Genesis, preceding Genesis, could have existed. If nothing else, oral records would have existed. 

    These obviously would have filtered into pagan ideas and that is where the similarities come from. Not the other way around. 

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    You can’t just assume that Adam and/or Noah were real historical figures and then reason on that basis. You need to ask what the evidence points to, or at least is compatible with.

    • Anonymous

      I am not sure I follow. Do you not assume Abraham Lincoln was real? Or George washington? Was Plato real? 

      The evidence points to Adam and Noah being real…..

      • Beau Quilter

        cdbren

        speaking of failing to respond to issues … did you check out the links I sent you, showing that the Discovery Institute writers don’t believe in the historicity of Noah and the flood.

        It seems you pick and choose the sources that agree with your own opinions, then silently ignore them when the same sources disagree.

        • Anonymous

          Beau, I don’t see any links you may have posted but seeing as The Discovery Institute does not advocate any one religion I don’t see how they would take a stand on Noah and the flood either way.

          They believe in an Intelligent Creator as the reason everything is here. They do not name that creator. They have many different writers from many different religions. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

            re:
            They have many different writers from many different religions. 

            of course, J.Wells is a moonie, he certainly counts for religious diversity.

            from discovery:
            Discovery Institute is a secular think tank, and its Board members and Fellows represent a variety of religious traditions, including mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, and agnostic. Until recently the Chairman of Discovery’s Board of Directors was former Congressman John Miller, who is Jewish. 

            although i don’t think any Jewish, Orthodox or agnostic actually write for them.

            this, imho, is not many different religions. they could double the diversity however by hiring Harun Yahya.

            re:
            Furthermore I put ‘sky” into the hebrew translator and got רקיע. 

            re:
            On Matt. 4:8 Did you know that “sheweth” in the Greek is “deiknuo” which can be literal or figurative? 

            re:
            (Are you familiar with the wayyiqtol narrative structure?) 

            re:
            I am reading it as it is. 

            re:
            This is how one studies the bible correctly. 

            re:
            None of the above is my own interpretation. It was all researched. 

            re:
            You don’t disagree with me, James. You disagree with God and His words.You are not arguing about my views, you are arguing about God’s word. 

            to cdbren:
            i think you argued better/wiser earlier by simply quoting evolutionnews.
            surprisingly i don’t think you even realize how much damage you are doing to your cause with such an isolated ignorance. you apparently don’t realize how “big” the discussion actually is.

          • Beau Quilter

            Cdbren

            You must have missed the Discovery Institute memo.

            Take a look at a couple of articles from your favorite source:

            http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/08/creationism_the_phantom_menace037351.html

            ” “Creationism” is a useful word to designate the claim of scientific evidence for a literal reading of Genesis, from the creation story to Noah’s flood. ID not only does not provide proof for a literalist Biblical theology; it goes head-on against such a theology on major points.”

            http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/01/reviewing_jerry_coyne016301.html

            [In a response to a comment that ID supports the story of Noah and the flood]

            “Dr. Coyne misunderstands the history of this issue. Regardless of whether or not creationism has undergone an “evolutionary” process, ID isn’t on the historical continuum with creationism. Creationism is the opinion that Genesis is more or less literally true as science. Many Christians hold to that view, and they have my respect, but I (and the vast majority of I.D. advocates) disagree.”

            As you can see, ID supporters do have theological opinions. And despite what you say, they do “name the creator”. Look at any book by William Dembski or Michael Behe. Believe me, the creator is definitely named.

            • Anonymous

              I know all that. So?

              • Beau Quilter

                Cdbren

                I give up. You contradict yourself so often, we should just stop answering your posts – you’re debating yourself!

                • Anonymous

                  You posted that they don’t believe Genesis is literally true as science. 

                  I never said the Bible was literally true as science. I’ve always said that the bible is literally true as history. 

                  ID scientists are not ashamed to name the creator that THEY personally believe is behind the Intelligent Design. Personal belief is allowed and in no way diminishes from the idea that there are clear signs of an intelligent designer. They leave personal belief up to the individual.

                  I see no where that I am contradicting myself. 

                  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

                    re:
                    I never said the Bible was literally true as science. I’ve always said that the bible is literally true as history.  

                    it is no more modern 21st C history then it is 21st C science.

                    the idea of history, what makes up historical studies, the notions of the past and its meaning are cultural constructs that differ greatly over time(and place).
                    this http://www.deepbiblestudy.net/2008/04/historicity-of-genesis-1-11/
                    has an example spectrum of our current various uses of historical analysis from fantasy to textbooks. the people who wrote Genesis had nothing like modern newspaper reportage type of analysis  (just the facts dragnet style) in mind. that whole way of looking at history as just one propositional fact after another is modern(dating from 17thC). to find the meaning in history, to show who and where in the world you stood with your genealogy in hand, to find individual and community purpose through a common story shared verbally, that is what history was to those ancient sages.

                    to force modern historical analysis into Gen does it no more justice than to force modern mobio into goats mating within sight of almond branches. of modern cosmology into let there be light. or modern geology into 40 days of rain, or linguistics into the tower of babel, or medicine into demon possession or light years into the firmament. for they are all radically incommensurate. you can not just line up the words in each field, draw straight lines of causation from the Bible into history and science and proclaim “there it is so”, it does great injustice to both, as is the topic of the blog entry hosting this conversation.

                    • Anonymous

                      So a world wide flood, if real, would cause a lot of creatures and plants to die and be buried quickly by mud and sand. So if we dig in the ground we should find a whole bunch a fossils of dead things. Not just in one place but all around the globe.

                      Is that what we find, Richard? Or am I forcing 21st century science into the bible? In what way? (Lets keep it simple). 

                    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

                      a world wide flood was disproved by young earth creationists looking for evidence of noah’s flood and not only not finding it but showing the actual history of the planet as being very different from what they expected to find. about 300 years ago. there is an excellent book on the topic _Ages in Chaos: James Hutton and the Discovery of Deep Time_

                      hint: google geological stratum
                      simple idea: they are not mixed up, they are stratified. by age. l o n g ages.

  • Anonymous

    I have been researching the dome idea for quite some time. I found that most merely peoples thought the earth was flat. The closest idea that the sky was a dome is that is was a dome shape. Not solid or if anything, transparent. 

    Even as far back as Babylonian times some viewed the earth as a round sphere. 

    I think the idea of ancient people believing in a solid dome is far reaching, not mentioned in the Bible, and more mythological than mainstream.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

      re:
      Even as far back as Babylonian times some viewed the earth as a round sphere 

      i really would like to read these references. afaik the earliest speculation about a spherical earth was 6thC BCE Greeks. the Babylonians, not being seafarers had no reason to suspect the earth was not flat.

      • Anonymous
        • http://www.rethinkingao.com Mike Beidler

          cdbren,

          You do realize you just debunked your own theory, right?

          • Anonymous

            I don’t think so. What is my theory?

             

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

          re:
          the Earth and the heavens were depicted as a “spatial whole, even one of round shape” 

          spherical HEAVENS, flat earth inside. 

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    “The evidence points…” What evidence – by which I mean historical evidence – points towards there having been a historical Adam or Noah?

    On the dome, you keep making assertions. Cite primary sources. You need to provide evidence and not merely expect people to accept your authority, especially when your claims have so often been shown to be false or at least unsubstantiated.

    • Anonymous

      James, You act as if I am unique in what I am saying. 

      I really think you need to submit to God’s authority, as you say you are a Christian, instead of your own head in the air authority.

      There is no “solid dome” mentioned in Genesis. The original Hebrew word in no way means “solid”. It means “beaten out”, “expanse”. A dome shaped expanse of atmosphere just as it is today. 

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Since you have shown that words mean to you whatever you wish them to, perhaps you would be so kind as to explain what a “beaten out expanse of atmosphere” is?

    I’ll bet you also don’t take Matthew’s reference to a mountain from which one could view all the kingdoms of the earth literally, either…

    • Anonymous

      As “beaten out” or “expanse” it means a large curved sky. 

      Please stop putting in your own twists to the wording. You added “of” and “atmosphere” but left out “or”. 

      Yes, I do take Matt. 4:8 literal. 
      Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms at once. It says nothing about being able to view all the kingdoms. 

      You are reading into it again and adding your own twist to it.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    No! Cdbren, you clearly don’t like what the Bible actually says, and so in order to maintain the charade of having a supposedly inerrant text – so that in actual fact, you can claim the inerrancy of your own stance – you ignore what the Bible actually says.

    Or perhaps you simply do not read what the text says carefully, since apparently you don’t even read carefully the pages to which you yourself post links.

    You’ve been exposed multiple times as ill-informed, unduly arrogant, and participating in deception either deliberately or by repeating what others say and which you lack the discernment to identify as deceitful. And yet (presumably due to your pride) you are determined to press on. How long will you keep this up? What will it take to get through to you, when even what the Bible actually says is apparently unable to get through the blinkers you have placed on your eyes?

    • Anonymous

      James, I have not changed scripture one bit. You are adding in and changing words. I am reading it as it is.

      I like what the bible says just fine. 

      On Matt. 4:8 Did you know that “sheweth” in the Greek is “deiknuo” which can be literal or figurative? 

      Also, Satan showed Jesus “the glory of them”. How would Jesus see the glory of them from the very top of a mountain? 

      It is quite obvious that the writer was speaking figuratively. Satan, as an angel, had the power to show Jesus all the kingdoms at once. 

      This is how one studies the bible correctly.  

      ——-

      There are a few Hebrew words that mean beaten out sheets of metal. Raqiya is not one of them and simply means expanse or spread out expanse. 

      You wouldn’t entertain, even for a minute that the raqiya was called heaven (Gen. 1:8) because it was the sky and outer space? The Hebrew word for heaven used in the OT is shamayim or shameh which meant “lofty”, the “sky” or where the clouds move. 

      Why would God call the raqiya shamayim if it was a solid dome? 

      Furthermore I put ‘sky” into the hebrew translator and got רקיע. That looks like raqiya to me. Looks like they use the word today in their language to mean “skyline”. 

      None of the above is my own interpretation. It was all researched.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Cdbren, as has been pointed out to you before, the stratification doesn’t fit the scenario you propose, unless you are willing to posit plants running uphill in order to conform the evidence to your assumptions.

    Flood geology was generally accepted and change was resisted, once upon a time. But the evidence accumulated and required that people change their minds. Fortunately most Christian geologists have not been as stubborn as you are. But then again, they know that matters of geology are not decided from one’s armchair sitting at a computer, but through examination of the evidence.

    The chalk continues to cry out. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Or The Bible, Rocks and Time written by conservative Evangelical geologists:  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2009/04/review-of-young-and-stearley-the-bible-rocks-and-time.html 

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

      if you’re at the univ of texas at san antonio and found your copy of _the bible, rocks, and time_ is checked out…i got it via interlibrary loan, THANKS…*grin* in my hands NOW

  • Anonymous

    cdbren, I know you don’t read any of the links I post, but I am going to post them anyway for other people’s enjoyment.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord

    See especially part 7.

    So you think that 800 billion vertabrates lived where the Karroo Formation in Africa is? 800… billion. There is estimates of half a million tusks in Russia. Are you saying the earth was literally piled a mile high with animals before the flood happened?

    So here it is, quite simple: A global flood never happened because it is completely inconsitant with all evidence with have on both floods and the geological column.

    • Anonymous

      There is no proof that there are 800 billion fossils there. That has been debunked as a very high, poorly estimated guess. If you can give an exact count, that might be better. I know that 40,000 fossils have been dug up from there to date. 

      So fossils don’t just lay around and get fossilized so you are either going to have to come up with some wild idea of how that many got buried at the same time or come to the same conclusion as you stated. That they all were piled a mile high and then died together.

      They estimate there are 150 million mammoth fossils in Russia. (Just an estimate, not fact.) Compared to the estimate of 100,000 buffalo that once inhabited only parts of the United States, at one time, that seems a larger than normal figure but not outragious. (Correct me if I am wrong that Russia is twice as large as the United States.)

      Considering, as I believe, that they survived for quite a long time after the flood. Living and dying. We are talking “frozen in ice” here, not “buried in sediment layers”. (Correction, some are buried around 3 feet down in the soil.)

      Good points though.

  • Anonymous

    Faint young Sun problem

    Main article: Faint young Sun paradox

    Theoretical models of the Sun’s development suggest that 3.8 to 2.5 billion years ago, during the Archean period, the Sun was only about 75% as bright as it is today. Such a weak star would not have been able to sustain liquid water on the Earth’s surface, and thus life should not have been able to develop. However, the geological record demonstrates that the Earth has remained at a fairly constant temperature throughout its history, and that the young Earth was somewhat warmer than it is today.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

    —–
    The Sun is currently behaving unexpectedly in a number of ways.

    It is in the midst of an unusual sunspot minimum, lasting far longer
    and with a higher percentage of spotless days than normal; since May 2008.

    It is measurably dimming; its output has dropped 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at EUV wavelengths in comparison with the levels at the last solar minimum.

    Over the last two decades, the solar wind’s speed has dropped by 3%, its temperature by 13%, and its density by 20%.

    Its magnetic field is at less than half strength compared to the minimum of 22 years ago. The entire heliosphere, which fills the Solar System, has shrunk as a result, thereby increasing the level of cosmic radiation striking the Earth and its atmosphere.

  • Anonymous

    You’re just fudging the number so you don’t have to deal with the implications of an enormous amount of animals being fossilized in one area, as that would make it be 2100 animals per square acre on the earth. Lets think about that 150 million mammoth fossils in Russia. As I have mentioned before, most animals do not become fossilized. And for your information, 150 million is 1,500 times greater than 100,000. 1500 is 750 times larger than two. And remember again, according to you the earth is around 6,000 years old. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.
    Never mind that the ice they are in has layers which go back well beyond 10000 years (the ice they used to measure climate change of the earth goes back over 600,000) because apparently scientists can’t be trusted to count seasonal rings. 

    Faint young sun idea debunked here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE311.html

    Larger article on solar neutrinos here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-solar.html

    • Anonymous

      I’ve gone over the seasonal rings thing. There are no tree rings making trees alive today older than 4000+- years.

      The rings in ice are supposed to be annual, ASSUMING each ring represents a whole year. Rings get harder to count the lower you go down because of the weight of compacting. 

      They can’t be accurately counted beyond a few thousand years. Also, the ice was melting at the bottom of the core, not solid as they expected. 

  • Anonymous

    Since you don’t read my links, I’ll show some snippets for you: 

    “Trees form yearly rings on their trunks, so we can determine a tree’s age by counting its rings. The oldest living trees on earth are bristlecone pines found in the Sierra Nevadas that are about 6,000 years old. Dead trees lying beside them are as old as 11,800 years.3 The seasonal ice rings in glaciers provide another similar method. Scientists have drilled ice cores deep into glaciers and found ice as old as 123,000 years old in Greenland4 and 740,000 years in Antarctica.5Also, the earth has a magnetic field that reverses direction about two to three times every million years. Evidence of these reversals is left behind in rocks that were molten and had their magnetic fields frozen at the time of the reversals. By counting these, we can trace back to 170 million years ago.6The above methods give a lower limit for the earth’s age, but not an upper limit. They simply cannot point further back because of limitations in measurement.”The links are http://biologos.org/questions/ages-of-the-earth-and-universe

    http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens2002.pdf

    http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/resources/Faraday%20Papers/Faraday%20Paper%208%20White_EN.pdf These are all REAL scientists who are CHRISTIANS who publish REAL articles using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD in REAL PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS.:)

  • Anonymous

    There is also no evidence in those tree rings of anything like a global flood.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

      re:
      There is also no evidence in those tree rings of anything like a global flood. 

      but there aren’t any trees alive that are over 5,ooo years old. this just proves the correctness of Bishop Ussher’s chronology from Genesis. now if you actually found a tree older than 6k that would be different but you won’t because God won’t let you. Besides you’re just assuming the dead ones are older, they really aren’t. God created them looking old during the creation week. besides all the dead ones are piled together in a gulley just like the flood predicts they would be. all the evidence when correctly interpreted points to a young earth. 
      *grin*

      • Anonymous

        Richard, ever hear of the “Kentucky Twelve Seam”—a layer of coal that is flat on the top and bottom, made of large pieces of bark, and interrupted by two thin layers of shale containing ocean fossils?

        Scientists have a theory that the fossil record shows around 40 successive forests growing and dying over millions of years. (That’s a lot of trees buried in the sediment layers!)

        Dead trees after the flood, in the fossil record, would show ages of approx. 5000 yrs. old. Any tree that grew after the flood would be around that same age from the flood to today. 

        So I am wondering if you unwittingly proved one of my points? There are many trees found in the fossil record. 

        http://amazingdiscoveries.org/C-deception-fossils_petrified_trees_catastrophism.html

        Another point: How long would it take wood to petrify? It has always been believed by scientists that petrification
        must take place over millions of years. However, these processes can
        take place rapidly. Instant petrification has been achieved artificially
        and under natural circumstances. By impregnating wood with solutions
        high in minerals such as silicon and aluminum, instant petrification has
        been achieved and even patented.

        P. McCafferty, 1992 “Instant petrified wood?” Popular Science, (1992):56-57. For examples of rapid petrification see also, R. Piggot, The Australian Lapidary Magazine, (January 1970):9.

      • Anonymous

        God was also busy making the Sierra Nevada’s look not as eroded as the Appalachians, despite that in a global flood would equally erode both. Then He had to make sure that when he flooded the world, he didn’t show any evidence of it in the Greenland ice cores which he made to appear to date back 40,000 years. Then after the flood he magically recreated the ice-capes, which would have floated in the flood and broken up; including magically making the Greenland ice cape, which could not regrow at all on its own. Then God had to erase all the evidence of a global flood from the sea floors.

        Also cdbren, the reason some cultures have world flood myths is because pre-modern ancient cultures had a significantly smaller view of the world than you do and would have considered a large local flood to be “the entire world” because that was most of the known world to them. We shouldn’t be surprised to find flood myths in different cultures. That is what we can call them right? Myths? I mean they do have sexual encounters with divine beings, anthropomorphic language of gods, stories of origins, etc, right? 

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

          re:
          the reason some cultures have world flood myths is because pre-modern ancient cultures had a significantly smaller view of the world than you do and would have considered a large local flood to be “the entire world” because that was most of the known world to them. We shouldn’t be surprised to find flood myths in different cultures. 

          there are several interesting rebuttals to the thesis: most ancient or primitive cultures have flood stories.

          1. the first is the inadvertent sampling issue. Most of the early europeans to collect these various flood stories were missionaries who when they encountered new people had the issue of noah’s flood in their cultural repertoire, essentially they asked leading questions and their informants told them what they wanted to hear. there are several instances in new Guinea where trained anthropologists went back to tribal members and were told exactly this. 

          2. the second is the failure to distinguish between cultures that lived where floods were a physical fact of life and places that did not flood. when this division is made, we discover that flood stories exist where it floods and do not exist where flooding is not a problem. the fact is most people live where flooding is an issue, therefore most cultures have an ancient flood mythology. the similarities between the various stories is better explained by collection issues than a common mythology based on ancient memories of a single catastrophic worldwide event that did not occur. it is however a good issue to show particular bias in the way information has been collected and collated into anthropological theories.

          an interesting sidebar is the toba volcano. it’s pretty clear that it created a human founders effect and population genetic bottleneck about 70kya. yet there are very few myths about darkness swallowing the people or other tales that could conceivably be attributed to dim racial memories of this event. 

          • Anonymous

            Thanks for the clarification sir! You err though in thinking that the toba volcano was 70kya. It is clear it erupted during the flood, along with all the other volcanos in the geological record; which normally, if we were to use science, the heat released from all this magma and other processes we see in the geological record happening at once would completely vaporize all the water in the oceans and raise the temperature of the atmosphere to over 1000 C ( I know, ALMOST as hot as Arizona!) and completely fry every living animal and boil the atmosphere right off of the earth. However, that clearly did not happen because

            • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

              re:
               and other processes we see in the geological record happening at once would completely vaporize all the water in the oceans and raise the temperature of the atmosphere to over 1000 C ( I know, ALMOST as hot as Arizona!) 

              so that is where all the flood waters went! evaporated by volcanos. i’ve always wondered where the drain was, i figured it would be found under the Antarctica ice someday, maybe that lake the russians are trying to drill into. 

              • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                This is a point at which young-earth creationism just needs to add aliens and atomic bombs and it basically becomes Scientology. :-)

                • Anonymous

                  James, I believe you would find these two xkcd comics very entertaining and extremely relevent.

                  http://xkcd.com/258/

                  http://xkcd.com/966/

                  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                    Thanks for sharing those comics, @aaronpxian:disqus ! Seeing them again led me to reflect on their relation to the argument for Intelligent Design in a new way:  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2011/12/intelligent-design-is-counter-evidence-to-intelligent-design.html 

              • Anonymous

                Well if you have a biblical worldview you know that they drained both into Sheol and off the edges of the world, but atlas you compromise the Word of God with modern scientific ideas about the earth being round and supposedly having a “core” even though this has been refuted numerous times by me as blatant lies to cover up the fact that: duh, volcanoes are hot because they lead directly to hell!

              • Anonymous

                re: and other processes we see in the geological record happening at once would completely vaporize all the water in the oceans and raise the temperature of the atmosphere to over 1000 C ( I know, ALMOST as hot as Arizona!) 

                Um, no. This is yet another false assumption. No one ever claimed “other processes in the geological record happening at once.”

                The Bible states “all the fountains of the great deep” were broken up. This can only be speculated on as to what exactly happened but subduction from volcanic activity at deep sea level would not raise the temperature of the atmosphere. It would however raise the sea floor. We even see evidence for the events in the bible in the Atlantic ocean. 

                Ocean floor trenches and seamounts:

                Puerto Rico Trench, in the North Atlantic, is the deepest trench at 8,605 metres (28,232 ft)

                Laurentian Abyss is found off the eastern coast of Canada

                South Sandwich Trench reaches a depth of 8,428 metres (27,651 ft)

                Romanche Trench is located near the equator and reaches a depth of about 7,454 metres (24,455 ft).

        • Anonymous

          You are making wide assumptions on all points. I would argue that the ice cores do not show 40,000 years of history, ice caps were formed during the ice age, erosion would not happen as uniform all across the globe and is not just from ocean water receding, and finally evidence of a flood is shown in the sea floors.

          • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

            Cdbren, You are making wide assumptions on all points. Those with actual expertise in these areas would argue that the ice cores do show 40,000+ years of history, young earth creationists make nonsense of the notion of an ice age, erosion of course does not happen uniformly all across the globe and is not just from ocean water receding, and that helps your case not at all, but merely illustrates your lack of understanding of the areas of science you arrogantly speak about, and finally evidence of a flood is not shown in the sea floors.

    • Anonymous

      Yes, exactly. That is because all the current trees have grown since after the flood. 

  • Anonymous

    cbren, what happens when you carbon date a dead tree that has rings? The first date is when it died, and we can count the rings to see how long it was alive before that. 

    On creationist lies about coal http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mtsthelens.html

    Follow the links on that page for more on polystrate fossils.

    Cdbren, explain how multiple layers of forest prove a global flood. Were forested growing on top of each other at the same time there were 2100 vertebrates per acre? Explain how plants in general survived a global flood. How was limestone formed? How was chalk deposited? Why haven’t any of the answers to these questions appear in peer reviewed journals? There is 1.16×10^13 metric tons of coal reserves, where did that come from?

    • Anonymous

      They don’t appear in peer reviewed journals because those peers won’t accept anything with a supernatural explanation and will cut off funding to the person that does that. The scientist will lose his job.

      2100 vertebrates per acre is false.

      Plants in general can survive floods easily. Noah’s ark, floating seeds, etc.

      The chalk thing was already discussed in depth with another blog James started. You could also easily look up the Christian responses to these on the web. Chalk deposits are from limestone and dead marine organisms that died in mass during the flood. 

      Coal comes from dead plant matter, pressure and heat. Everyone knows that. I would imagine there was tons of plant matter buried by the flood.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Cdbren, why do you not complain that chemists do not take God into account in chemical reactions, and physicists assume in their equations that God will not be a factor in calculating velocity or mass? Claiming that it is an anti-religious bias is an excuse to try to cover the fact that young-earth creationists do nothing that can accurately be called “science.” That they claim to is just another of their lies.

    You still have not dealt with the number of dead organisms that would have been required to produce the chalk in a flood. Other YECs admit that it doesn’t fit their perspective. Why won’t you? Presumably because you have not even grasped the nature of the problem.

    If pressure can produce coal and oil in a short time span, then young-earth creationists have a solution to the world’s energy problems. And even in terms of finding fossil fuels, they could use their “superior methods” to find natural resources that scientists working in an evolutionary framework miss. Why don’t they do so? Clearly if young-earth creationism is right, this provides an opportunity to prove it. But no one does, and the reason why is obvious…to most people.

  • Anonymous

    No I am not making wild assumptions. This is how this went: 
    Scientists made hypothesis about ice layers
    Scientists made observations about ice layers
    Scientists tested observations against hypothesis
    Scientists refined hypothesis and repeated the process, publishing their results in scientific, peer reviewed journals that do not require anyone to adhere to a statement of belief to publish in them.
    Because of this rigorous process, we have concluded that, the ice layers ARE WELL OVER 6,000 years old. This same scientific process tells us that no, a global flood could not cause an ice age, and even if it did there is no way the ice caps could reach where they are at today in 6000 years. Nowhere close. As I have already mentioned, the ice in Greenland could not regrew at all. 
    Because of this same process, scientists were able to discover the principles that allow you to type on a computer and transmit your assertions digitally for all to see. Same process. It is a complete contradiction that you accept electrical theory, but don’t think scientists can be trusted counting seasonal layers in trees and ice and measuring radioactive decay.

    You are doing exactly what the picture on the other blog says creationists do. You do not accept evolution, so you quote mine or use bag logic instead. 

    Shame.

    Well I argue that icecaps are actually giant snow cones, erosion doesn’t exist because all that was done by an alien landscaping student field trip, and as for the ocean floors….

    WHO LIVES IN A PINEAPPLE UNDER THE SEA!?

    • Anonymous

      Aaron, you are the one making the assumptions. 

      Ice cores can’t be counted beyond the middle point because of extreme compression. So they assume it was “x” amount of years. 

      Sio then you assume they are right and then calculate it would be impossible for ice caps to reach what they are today. When in fact that is exactly what the evidence shows. That they did accumulate that fast.

      They ignore subannual/storm layers. There are also problems with the Milankovitch mechanism which the ice core scientists use.

      They also found a couple of things they did not expect so it is much more complex than you think.

      I can’t understand why you say it could not regrow at all when obviously if scientists are correct it has been growing for millions of years! If you meant it can’t regrow in 6000 years, again they can’t count the bottom half of the rings and they discount sub-annual storms. (More than one ring produced in one year.)

      Also, that last bit about computers demonstrates your lack of understanding between operational science and historical science.

  • Anonymous

    Trenches were dug by aliens. 

    No, that is not a false assumption.
    Fact: There is magma, limestone formation, meteorite impacts, and other processes seen in the geological record (e.g. radioactive and biological decay)
    Fact: These processes all release heat. 
    Fact: We can measure experimentally the specific heat of these things.
    Fact: By taking the amount of these processes in the geological record, we can accurately determine how much heat was released by them.

    Lets take magma. Theres about 8×10^24 grams of it in the geological record. That means 5.4×10^27 joules would be released while the magma cooled. Then there is the crystallization of the magma, limestone formation (never mind that limestone has to take a very long time to form anyway as its composed of an enormous about of dead microscopic sea creatures (dumped here by the aliens, no doubt)), radioactive decay, biological decay, and of course the atom bombs the aliens were using. Now we know how much water there is on the earth (minus what the aliens took when they left) and we know when water boils. So the math shows that there is indeed enough volume, and more than enough heat, to completely vaporize the oceans. Which makes sense as the ark was certainly steam powered.

    Obviously those trenches were not formed by tectonic plate activity. 
    As I said before, they were dug by aliens. Prove me wrong.

    • Anonymous

      You are not making any logical sense. 

      Perhaps you can educate yourself a bit with the link below. Please just look it over. It even has pictures to look at. 

      Heat from the Earth does not control the climate. Incoming solar radiation from our sun is 300% of the Earths total heat. While things that you mentioned happening are a mere .03%. The industrial period has increased heat output at surface level by 20%. Hmmm. Seems there is little effect if surface heat is increased. 

      “Our intuitions tell us that earthquakes, volcanoes, geysers and tides are mighty forces of nature and, in relation to a human individual, they are. But compared to the transfers of energy within the climate system, they are too puny to merit consideration.”

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/heatflow.html

  • Anonymous

    “Lack of understanding between historical science and operational science” I believe my point was that the same method is used to determine both and you and picking and choosing which to believe. I personally choose not to believe in gravity. I just think a happy wish and I can fly!

    Ice core dating unreliable debunked here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html

    While we are on ice cores, lets mention that they show no signs of a global flood, such as sediments, changes in salinity, changes in O ratios, thermal stresses, etc etc etc. 

    An issue is complex =/= evolution must be wrong. If you doubt me on this, take a modern physics course at your local university. 

    The Greenland ice-cape could not grow under the climate of the last 10ky.

  • Anonymous

    2100 vertebrates per acre is false- read here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

    Plants could survive flood debunked here http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH542.html

    Limestone can’t be produced in a global flood, already covered that, no, chalk deposits could not be formed in a year because the plankton settle at a rate of .0000154mm/sec, No, coal can’t be produced by the flood either, debunked here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mtsthelens.html

    I’m not saying those processes are not heating up the earth like that right now, because they are not being heating in the way you say that happened in the flood! Of course the heat comes from the sun. But to claim that all those processes happened in one year is impossible for that reason; such a process would super heat the earths atmosphere. Of course they are a minor part now, thats not the question! The question is that if they were all deposited in a global flood 5000 years ago what would the effects be! I never said that heat from volcanoes control the earth’s climate! The aliens do that!

    • Anonymous

      It would be negligible at best. 

      Offering other assumptions to the same evidence is not “debunking” anything. It is simply showing a different assumption to the same evidence.

      Worthwhile, yes. Proving facts, no.

      We must all be open to different assumptions because these things are historical science. There is no way to know for sure about past conditions or what actually did or did not happen. They are guesses at best on both sides of the issue. (Though creationism/ID do have historical records that can’t be over looked.)

  • Anonymous

    Good grief, you’re getting your information from climate change deniers websites! Thats like learning thermodynamics from 9/11 deniers. Hold on I got to go watch Fox News so I can get my facts straight.

    • Anonymous

      re: Good grief, you’re getting your information from climate change deniers websites! Thats like learning thermodynamics from 9/11 deniers. Hold on I got to go watch Fox News so I can get my facts straight.

      aaron, I look at all possibilities. I look at what evolutionists say, what creationists say, what ID scientists say, etc. That is what good science is all about. Unlike evolutionists (molecules to man) that stay in their safe little anti-god box. 

      Are you saying that the main principles are wrong? 

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Cdbren, I have web space and so I could easily make a web site claiming that everything that you say is wrong. Would that in fact make you wrong? Why do you assume that simply because something is on the web, and supports your viewpoint, it is legitimate? Can you understand why this approach will never persuade someone who actually cares about evidence and does not share your assumption that if it is on the web and supports young-earth creationism, it must be true?

    • Anonymous

      re: Cdbren, I have web space and so I could easily make a web site claiming that everything that you say is wrong. Would that in fact make you wrong? Why do you assume that simply because something is on the web, and supports your viewpoint, it is legitimate? Can you understand why this approach will never persuade someone who actually cares about evidence and does not share your assumption that if it is on the web and supports young-earth creationism, it must be true?

      That is a great argument. So therefore evolution theory is not true since it is from the same sources as other science articles or info I quote.

      I am not trying to persuade anyone about anything. I am merely offering other theories to the evidence. I have the exact same evidence so therefor I can formulate a theory. Right? 

  • Anonymous

    No they are not guesses nor assumptions. It is not my assumption that magma has a specific heat of around .15. You may look at the possibilities but you sure as hell aren’t critical about them. As I already mentioned, I AM NOT saying that those processes occurring as they do in the real world superheat the earth. I am saying that if they all happened in a one year span the science shows that is impossible because such processes would super heat the earth.
    Let me explain it as I would a child.
    Hot lava is hot.
    When it touches the sky, water, ground, it cools, releasing energy in the form of heat. This energy is aborbed by the ground, the sky, and the water. That makes the air around the lava HOTTER. The reason it does not superheat the earth now is because 1. It doesn’t occur at those ridiculous rates you presume they do. 2. The heat is spread through the atmosphere by convection and released from earth through radiation. This keeps the earth at near thermal equilibrium, however, if such a massive amount of heat was released in such a short time span, as oppose to millions of years, it would not only super heat the earth but the earth still would not have cooled down back to where it is today (radiation releases only so much energy at a time). Though since the atmosphere would have boiled off, I guess it would probably cool down quite faster.
    Let me use an analogy. You have a gas stove with a pilot light. You put a pan filled with water on the stove. The pilot light is releasing heat, but it is doing so in such small quantities that it will not boil the water, ever. You can leave it on the stove forever and it will never boil. Now, lets say that the pilot light burned for 1 million years. Lets take that amount of energy it took to do that and apply it to heat the stove within 1 hour. What would happen? Would the water vaporize? Yep, it most definitely would, along with most of the house most likely. 

    I lost count of which blog post which of your false assertions are on, so I’m posting this here:

    “Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?”

    • Anonymous

      aaron, it is speculated to have happened UNDER the sea floor. That is why I mentioned subduction. 

      You don’t even know what Christian scientists have speculated on or what actually happened at the time of the flood. So yes, you are merely assuming things. 

      I never gave any rates and I showed that even increased 20 times over just years, there is no effect to the atmosphere. 

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Cdbren, if you ever stop lying about the evidence, comprehend the evidence, are aware of the range of evidence, and are open to using deductive reasoning in a way that you have been unwilling to except for the Bible, then in theory you could come up with a theory that it would be possible to discuss intelligently.

    • Anonymous

      James, how about this. (And keep in mind this isn’t fact, just conjecture)

      Lets assume someone placed days into the creation account or they really don’t mean a 24 hour day and ignore them for a second.

      The first four periods of creation which includes the sun, moon, earth, stars and planets were long periods of time much longer than 24 hours. The main reason is so God can allow stars and other objects to safely move away from Earth and be in a “very good” position for life to be created on Earth.

      In other words God waited till it reached a certain point so that star light could be shining on Earth.

      Then plants, animals and man were created. After all it does not say how long Adam and Eve were in the garden before they sinned. This would have been a time of eternal bliss and no sin. No death. No thorns, etc.

      (I heard one person try to say that the Garden of Eden was isolated from the rest of creation).

      So the distant starlight and the ages we get for the Earth are not a problem.
      There would be no need to bring in evolution of molecules to man in either, if we are taking the Bible as at least mostly factual and the clear evidence from science of the complex information in life.

      Of course this leaves Genesis open for people to try to push molecules to man in there.

      Conclusion: The universe is + or – billions of years old. The Earth, moon and sun is around 4.5 million years old. Plants and life were created by God around 10,000 years ago.

       

      • http://www.rethinkingao.com Mike Beidler

        cdbren,

        If you’re familiar with ancient Near Eastern literature, especially Egyptian temple dedication texts, the solution to how long the days of Genesis were is quite simple.  But you’re probably not willing to go there.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

          i’ll look up and read your references on 
          Egyptian temple dedication texts, i don’t know enough about this.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

        why reinvent the wheel? there are lots of good science books on cosmology. it always strikes me as odd when people with little knowledge want to propose new theories before they get a real education into what lots of smart and dedicated people have done.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jordan-Campbell/761465633 Jordan Campbell

        Makes sense to me.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Cdbren, so you are still not willing to accept that human beings are composed of molecules?

    • Anonymous

      I believe most organic things are made up of molecules, James. What is your point?

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    My point is the same as it has always been, namely to try to force you to be honest even though you have shown yourself to be intent on deceit.

    You clearly do not disagree with molecules being used in the composition of human beings. And so “molecules to men” is not what you disagree with. You presumably disagree with some particular understanding of how molecules come to be part of the makeup of human beings (presumably not only the men but women too). What is the process you in fact reject, and why do you reject it?

    • Anonymous

      I reject the idea of common decent. That major complex improvements can be built up by many minor improvements in living organisms. Everything from the fossil record, to how we design computer systems, to what we know about DNA, to where information comes from all point to design.

      If species did develop that way and major organs or systems developed that way, I think scientists would have found proof of it by now. Or we’d see it in the fossil record. While there are similarities in some species, there are also huge gaps between them.

      Is it really logical to think that in a system like ours where everything we can see and study is running down (entropy) that some sort of natural mechanism can build things up? That random natural processes can build the human brain and human consciousness? That nature can produce order out of disorder?

      Unintelligent forces can’t do intelligent things. The concept of simple cell to complex man is like a movie running backwards. It defies all known concepts we know of. If all the particles to build simple life were sitting together in just the right conditions you’d still be missing something. Information.

      I find it really surprising that scientists today still regard it as a valid theory.

      • Anonymous

        You clearly have no understanding of the evolutionary mechanisms, as I have mentioned before. Everything we know about the fossil record blatantly refutes you, and the only way you have gotten around that is to lie and ignore evidence. What do we know about DNA that denies change in a gene pool over time? We have seen species develop, we have proof of it and have readily supplied it to you, which you have conviently ignored. EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM NATURAL PROCESSES!!!! Study the mechanisms of evolution! Please please please read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html 

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

        re:
        I reject the idea of common decent. 

        descent. i suspect that you support the common decent.
        i don’t usually correct spelling but you consistently misspell this word.

        re:
        I think scientists would have found proof of it by now.  

        science supplies evidence not proof. if you want proof study math.
        there is a mountain of evidence, you are just willfully ignorant of it.

        re:
        Is it really logical to think that in a system like ours where everything we can see and study is running down (entropy) that some sort of natural mechanism can build things up? 

        hint: sunlight

        re:
        Unintelligent forces can’t do intelligent things. 

        might if i use this for my .sig? the US federal election is coming in a year and the Repubs still don’t have a candidate.

        • Anonymous

          Richard, again we are going around in circles.

          Evidence doesn’t really tell anything. One has to interpret that evidence.

          You could have maybe generalized that “mountain of evidence” in a list instead of just saying it. I could probably use that same evidence, scientifically, to show that everything was created by an intelligence.

          Personally I see no mountain of evidence. Just a couple inferences. (I assume we are talking about common descent and not some vague definition of evolution as I accept evolution as fact that species can change to adapt to their environment to a certain extent.)

          So now sunlight is the mechanism that can increase complex information at the genome level and look to the future to build complex designs one piece at a time? Hmmm. If you said that in a peer reviewed article you’d be the laughing stock for months to come.

          So maybe you could post just a list of this mountain of evidence that shows there is a system that runs backwards to nature, can predict the future and can add new complex information to the genome. You would also need to show evidence that the fossil record records these millions of small steps for all creatures with no large gaps.

          Mathematics can and does disprove evolution. Many science fields use math to prove things. Mathematics is used throughout the world as an essential tool in many fields, including natural science, engineering, medicine, and the social sciences.

          E=mc2

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

            re:
            again we are going around in circles.  

            a point of agreement has been reached. 

            for the lurkers:
            1:
            re:
            Is it really logical to think that in a system like ours where everything we can see and study is running down (entropy) that some sort of natural mechanism can build things up?

            hint: sunlight

            2:
            So now sunlight is the mechanism that can increase complex information at the genome level and look to the future to build complex designs one piece at a time?

            entropy is a measure of a closed system. the earth by itself is not, the earth + sunlight striking it is approximately so.

            • Anonymous

              Richard, your idea with sunlight…..

              So are you saying that a natural force like sunlight can do macroscopically describable things that are extremely improbable from the microscopic point of view?

              Please also explain the generalization for a closed system and the generalization for an open system.

              Please explain the mere fact of radiation on the earth somehow creates an increase in order and creates information. (Hint: the only thing sunlight does is make temperature distribution less random.)

              • Anonymous

                Cdbren, I don’t think you have any understanding of what entropy is, I would suggest googling it, or better yet go take a college level physics course.

                • Anonymous

                  Instead of asking me to look up definitions of things I already understand in a basic way, why not answer my questions?

                  I see nothing in the definition of entropy or open and closed systems that says those things are the origin of new complex information in the genome of a living creature.

                  I see nothing in those definitions that says nature should completely reverse itself and run backwards.

                  • Anonymous

                    Its obvious from how you talk about entropy that you do not understand what it is, as you don’t understand why sunlight disproves the your argument. Why don’t you define entropy and explain the 2nd law for us. Also, you have failed to discuss in your post about change in a gene pool how the mechanisms of evolution, such as gene flow generic drift mutation natural selection etc, mechanisms that both increase variation in a gene pool and decrease it, cannot cause macro evolution.

                    • Anonymous

                      aaron, the burden of proof must be on the person who first brought up the cause. That would be Richard. He or you need to explain how mere sunlight programs complex information into the genome.

                    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

                      re:
                      aaron, the burden of proof must be on the person who first brought up the cause. That would be Richard. He or you need to explain how mere sunlight programs complex information into the genome. 

                      i said “delta S(system) – delta S(creatures) > 0″

                      repeating:
                      any basic website on entropy(even the wiki) will explain closed v open systems and what sunlight allows on the earth in terms of localized lower entropy(creatures) at the cost of higher system S(environment). we exist by consuming sunlight thereby increasing system S by more than we decrease our own S. 

                      i didn’t say anything about complex information and entropy, my undergrad math and physics is not enough background to understand informational entropy i’m afraid, i’ve tried several times to read in the field without success. you will have to explain it to me i’m sure, for i made a far simpler observation that is within my abilities.
                      i will try to understand http://ee.stanford.edu/~gray/it.pdf this afternoon, but i’m confident that it is over my head.

                      re:
                      Richard, are you going to even attempt to refute the scriptural defense I gave, or is this straw man the best you can offer? 

                      i only observed that making YEC a salvation issue leaves 80% of Christians outside your pale of settlement, and i am glad my church does not do this. i did not speak to the issue of death before the fall, or why ET is so evil etc. thus i am uncertain about what straw man i am creating, that you are referring to.

    • Ken Ham

      This
      poor man is simply lost. We know that God’s Word is meaningless when
      an unsaved man tries to put it together based on his own ideas.
      Professor McGrath is very sadly mistaken in his assessment.Wow!
      It is appalling to me that people like this are teaching the Bible in
      prestigious institutions of higher learning. Clearly, sending our
      children to Butler is not a good idea.You
      know you are doing something right when you are being attacked. If you preach truth to people, those that do not want to hear it
      will attack.  We need to de-Greek our churches!

      • Cliff Martin

        So, Mr. Ham, I’m trying to understand your points here.

        “You know you are doing something right when you are being attacked.”

        You mean that when you attack Dr. McGrath you are legitimizing his argument, proving that he is “doing something right”?

        “We need to de-Greek our churches!”

        I think I understand this one. Yes, let’s dumb down the church. Stupid sheep are so much easier to control and manipulate. If we can dumb them down sufficiently, we may even be able to impress them with nonsense about a 6000 year old earth, and a 5,000 year ago world-wide cataclysmic flood.

        • Anonymous

          Cliff, Ken meant character attacks, not debating back and forth. I don’t think Ken really attacked James the way James attacks others.

      • Anonymous

        Is this really Ken Ham or it is pseudonymous (hahaha a new testament reference is here somewhere…)

        Ken, I would just like to tell you that I almost walked away from my faith because of you. I had to rethink my entire childhood faith because of you and your lies. By simply learning critical thinking skills and logical fallacies in college I had to reject everything I had learned from you. I think you know you are being dishonest too. How could I still take AiG arguments after learning about slippery slope, circular reasoning, ad hoc, etc etc etc? You try to scare people away from real universities because you know they will learn critical thinking skills there. I cannot contain my utter disgust for you and your lies and how you fooled and doped me as an innocent child to believe that crap. Thank God that there were Christians likes James who were honest with science and the biblical text or else I would not be a Christian today.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

          i was never a yec so i don’t have that past to draw on. i’ve seen people writing like this over the years that i’ve paid attention to the debate, although most left the faith. may i ask if you would describe a yecist faith as brittle?  it seems that you must reject most science simply to avoid cognitive dissonance.

          • Anonymous

            Hm, I have never though of it as brittle before, but cognitive dissonance, heavens yes. I also experienced a lot of fear, always worried that the next scientific discovery would destroy my faith and running to AiG after every piece of new science came out or they found a fossil. I drew my confidence to challenge scientists and my science teacher from the persecution complex- I was being persecuted, therefore it showed that God was on my side because God’s people had always been persecuted. I guess you could say it was brittle; since Ken Ham and company taught that either it was YEC or godless atheism, those were really the only two options, so I think that me turning to progressive xianity is very rare. Most just go to atheism or agnosticism because thats what Ken taught! I thought of my former way of faith as very much of a closed bandwagon, staying the onslaught of the tides of darkness until Jesus returned and all the evolutionists got what they deserved (burning alive in hell). 

            • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

              thank you very much.
              i’ve seen the highly dichotomous thinking described as “emptying out the middle”, making the two extremes (in this case either yec or atheist) appear to be the only viable alternatives. the curious thing is that this kind of black v white thinking appeals greatly to people with low tolerance for ambiguity-for uncertainty. perhaps in religion like in politics much of our basic ideas have psychological underpinnings, just basic ways we are.

              to cdbren. any basic website on entropy(even the wiki) will explain closed v open systems and what sunlight allows on the earth in terms of localized lower entropy(creatures) at the cost of higher system S(environment). we exist by consuming sunlight thereby increasing system S by more than we decrease our own S.

              re:the Hebrew term “very good” does mean perfect in the widest sense. no it doesn’t. it means complete, suitable, no implications of perfection at all. perfection carries all kinds of implications of nothing better or without error or flaw is possible that are not inherent in the word tov. something can be good, suitable, aligned to it’s purpose and still be flawed. 

              look at gen 2
              it is not good for man to be alone. how can adam be perfect by himself as created and yet not tov to be alone? it is a question of purpose, of design, of God’s intention. not some hypothetical standard of perfection. God demonstrates his mastery of matter in creating adam from the clay, it-the physical substance yields to his touch, it can offer him no resistance to his efforts. God is absolute master over the stuff. this is very different from, and a polemic against the neighbors gods who are unable to impose their will entirely on the world around them, it keeps rebelling. isha is created tov for adam, suitable, a good match. does this imply she was perfect? of course not. she was flawed and that flaw would lead directly to sin.

              since we made no progress on firmament, i don’t expect much for tov either. but then again, the time & effort are really for the lurkers.

              • Anonymous

                Richard, you’ve got your wires crossed again.

                You say look at Gen. 2 where it is not good for Adam to be alone, yet God never states in Genesis 2 anywhere the statement “very good”.

                He only says it after he stated that he created both male and female from Genesis 1:27.

                So that argument falls flat.

                —-

                So sunlight helps the environment. Of course it does. Explain how that applies to information in the genome. It has nothing to do with adding or improving information. If I put my house plant out in the sun it won’t suddenly gather more information and start evolving. Or rather it won’t get any improvements whatsoever other than converting the sunlight to food and growing.

                Once again you have confused the issue.

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

                  re:
                  You say look at Gen. 2 where it is not good for Adam to be alone, yet God never states in Genesis 2 anywhere the statement “very good”.He only says it after he stated that he created both male and female from Genesis 1:27. 

                  very intensifies good, it doesn’t modify the basic meaning of tov into something new.

                  we have this refrain of God declaring things good, then God declares The Man good, then the first jarring show-stopping “not good”-that The Man is alone. the point is that The Man lacks something, needs someone, he is not complete, he needs The Woman. trying to force perfection into tov misses this point, it’s not that The Man has some fatal flaw, some less than perfect issue, he is incomplete, he can not fulfill his purpose without the woman. it’s further interesting that along with the continuing string of funny puns, that the woman is taken from the man and given a distinct identity, showing that the man was complete as created, just not fully differentiated so that relationship could occur. anyhow there is a huge literature on this, i see no benefit recapitulating it here. 

                  • Masdec77

                    Not that God declares “very good” for the 6th day only after her said that it is not good for man to be alone and he created woman.  Then it was “very good” again.

                    • Masdec77

                      Sorry for the typos.  It should be note not not and he not her. Thanks.

                    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

                      re:
                      Sorry for the typos 

                      the discus software allows edits, but it’s not obvious, it’s a mouseover edit button on your own postings, lower right, when signed in cookie exists,  at least using chrome!

                    • Anonymous

                      Um, well you are mixing up the creation stories here. In the first creation story God creates humankind in his image, both male and female, on the 6th day. In the second, man is formed from the dust and the women taken from the man’s ribs. Notice the contrast of how God speaks in both accounts. In the first, God is omnipotent and all powerful, calling and commanding creation into existence by merely speaking. In the second, the author speaks of God anthropomorphically and has God create the animals after Adam to see if he wants any of them as a partner. The J account is much more “down to earth”.

                  • Anonymous

                    Genesis 1:27 and then Genesis 1:31.

                    Adam and Eve were BOTH ALREADY created when God pronounced everything very good.

                    Genesis 2 is an overview of the 6th day of creation into the 7th day. God doesn’t pronounce “very good” anywhere in Genesis 2.

                    Not sure why you missed that point. Perhaps you need to study more?

                    • Anonymous

                      Genesis two contains a different creation story. Nowhere does it say to integrate them into one creation story, all the textual evidence says not to. Its very clear as the second story starts out “when no plant of the field was yet in the earth” and then creates adam and then “Out of the ground the LORD God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight…” and then “So out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air” and then finally the woman.
                      If I am so lacking in basic reading skills then why do the majority of scholars agree with that reading?

                    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

                      re:
                      Genesis 2 is an overview of the 6th day of creation into the 7th day. God doesn’t pronounce “very good” anywhere in Genesis 2. 

                      i am unaware of where i stated that “very good” occurs in Gen2, perhaps you can point it out, i will be glad to edit it, it was inadvertent and a mistake.
                      gen 2:4 ff is a different story, not a pericope of Gen1, the order of creation is not the same as Gen1, the POV, genre etc differ, as has been pointed out earlier

                      re:
                      Perhaps you need to study more? 

                      this is the story of my life, never enough study. so again, we agree. that’s twice now.

                    • Anonymous

                      Richard, you said it here:

                      “look at gen 2
                      it is not good for man to be alone. how can adam be
                      perfect by himself as created and yet not tov to be alone? it is a
                      question of purpose, of design, of God’s intention. not some
                      hypothetical standard of perfection. God demonstrates his mastery of
                      matter in creating adam from the clay, it-the physical substance yields
                      to his touch, it can offer him no resistance to his efforts. God is
                      absolute master over the stuff. this is very different from, and a
                      polemic against the neighbors gods who are unable to impose their will
                      entirely on the world around them, it keeps rebelling. isha is created
                      tov for adam, suitable, a good match. does this imply she was perfect?
                      of course not. she was flawed and that flaw would lead directly to sin.”

                      ——

                      Perhaps you were using it to make a different point.

                      I remember someone trying to say that Adam was not perfect because he had free will to sin but I can’t be certain it was here.

                      In any case, free will is not a flaw. To be a flaw something would not have to work right. For free will to work there has to be choices. In this case free will worked just fine.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

        re:
        This poor man is simply lost. We know that God’s Word is meaningless when an unsaved man tries to put it together based on his own ideas. 

        it is one of the more interesting epistemological claims that YECISM-AiG make, this “moralization” of knowledge. essentially they take private revelational knowledge, the kind of knowledge that they claim for Bible-that you can not know the Bible without being lead by the Spirit. and apply it wholesale to the very public knowledge of science. to wit: that scientists can’t say true things about the past, especially anything older than the creation event c. 6kya, because the creation event has to be applied directly to their minds by the Spirit. therefore only a good man can have true knowledge hence the moralization of epistemology.

        it is a very awkward claim to make, to say the very least, because the public nature of science has made it the one enterprise in this world that really transcends all the boundaries. i can study biology at any university, in any language, under people believing just about any religious or political dogma there is, and it is the same biology. amazing. yet in my own small denomination the discussion about supra and infralapsarianism has split families and made people stop talking to each other. this is the logical result of moralizing public knowledge-fragmentation and division.  because not only is your opponent wrong, he is wrong not due to ignorance but due to being evil.

        i’m thankful that science goes merrily chugging along ignorant of these moralizing claims of the YECists, demonstrating that public knowledge of the book of God’s works is accessible to fallen man despite their rebellion towards God. actually it’s really amazing as i come to reflect on it.

        as an aside, you would really expect more unity within the Church if this moralizing idea was even right for knowledge about the Bible, unless there is really only a very few Real Christians™, but given history i would expect them to be about 3 in number, anymore would divide over something.

  • Ken Ham

    Well
    you think you’ve heard it all, until those who oppose God’s Word and
    the stand Answers in Genesis takes on biblical authority from the very
    first verse, come up with another one. We’ve been accused of being
    ‘child abusers,’ of having a ‘mental illness,’ of having some sort of
    ‘virus,’ that we are ‘liberal,’–well now here is another one. This
    university professor is suggesting we might be ‘atheists.!’ He says:
    “It would not at all surprise me to learn one day that key leaders in
    the young-earth creationist movement were atheists seeking to do harm to
    Christianity.” Oh, and he calls us ‘charlatans’ too : ”
    Young-earth creationism is the work of charlatans who know little about
    either the Bible or science, and mislead the gullible.” I will have to start a dictionary for the list of names we are called.
    I guess name calling is in these days, for those who oppose Answers in
    Genesis–particularly is it in for university professors–particularly
    if they hold the “Clarence L. Goodwin Chair in New Testament Language
    and Literature at Butler University, Indianapolis.” And here’s a
    statement for you that shows the poor level of understanding of God’s
    Word and ridiculous statements such people make as they shake their fist
    at God’s clear Word. In talking about Answers in Genesis, he states:
    “They misconstrue the Bible as though it were not the work of men –
    even though Paul doesn’t merely put his name in the author’s position on
    his letters, but emphasizes in 2 Corinthians 11 that he speaks there as
    a fool and not according to the Lord.” Well–I have only one response to this nonsense:
    “For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you
    received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as
    the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also
    effectively works in you who believe.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

  • Ken Ham

    “For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you
    received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as
    the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also
    effectively works in you who believe.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    So presumably, Ken Ham, since you are attacking me I should take comfort that I must be right? If one’s views are disagreed with my experts in a field, should that really be a source of comfort?

    When the Thessalonians received the Word of God which they heard from Paul and his co-workers, are you really trying to suggest that that means (1) that they had given them the creation stories in Genesis, and (2) that the Thessalonians showed their faith by treating those as literally factual statements of biological truths?

    I am astonished, as always, at your willingness to demean others and question their Christian faith simply because they see that the nonsense you promote is just that, nonsense – unbiblical and unscientific nonsense.

  • Guest

    Let’s suppose that the earth was created over millions of years. Wouldn’t that negate the biblical concept that death came from Adam and Eve sinning?

    • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      No, for numerous reasons. One is because death in the story means being cut off from the tree of life which could allow one to live forever. It doesn’t mean humans who were previously inherently immortal having their fundamental nature changed. 

      But one could also point out that many conservative Christian interpreters of the Bible actually not only claim but emphasize that the death in view in Genesis 3 is spiritual rather than natural death, mainly because otherwise the statement that the humans would die in the day that they eat of the fruit would be false (unless one is happy to treat days less than literally, of course).

      • Anonymous

        James, I notice you regularly omit words to make the bible closer to your point and ignore other key scripture.

        The correct statement in Genesis is: “…thou shalt not eat of it. For in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.” KJV

        So I would assume, using your logic, that a person convicted of murder and sentenced to death would die right there on the spot as soon as the gavel comes down.

        You also ignore many key points:

        Genesis 1:30 which says all animals and man were created
        to eat only vegetables. You ignore the statement that everything was
        “very good”.

        You ignore that Adam and Eve did not care about being naked and when they ate of the fruit it bothered them. That means something fundamental about their nature changed.

        You ignore Romans 5:12-21 where it states that death entered into the world by sin. If we observe that everything dies then that meant real death.

        I could call the tree of life the tree of maintenance. It is another meaning to the Hebrew word “life”.

        In closing, since spiritual is clearly connected to physical I don’t see how you can divide the two apart.

  • Dave Bunnell

    It
    would not at all surprise me to learn one day that key leaders in the
    young-earth creationist movement were atheists seeking to do harm to
    Christianity.
    How disingenuous of you.  It would shock you to death to find that out, because even someone as willfully misguided and ignorant of science and the Bible as you are knows that creationists are believers in God. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

      re:
      Itwould not at all surprise me to learn one day that key leaders in the young-earth creationist movement were atheists seeking to do harm to Christianity.  

      this is variation on poe’s law
      “Poe’s law, named after its author Nathan Poe, is an Internet adage reflecting the fact that without a clear indication of the author’s intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between sincere extremism and an exaggerated parody of extremism.[1]”

  • Anonymous

    The comments on this post have devolved into a nit-picking and name-calling schoolyard game of, “But YOU said…”  As I re-read the post itself, it is apparent that this is precisely what the author wants, since the post itself is rife with ad hominem arguments with no real data.   Whether you are Young Earth Fundamentalist or Darwinian atheist, if you want to effectively argue and have any hope of proselytizing your position, begin from a completely neutral point and prove that all evidence points to your conclusion.  If you then cannot support your belief, maybe you need to re-think what you believe.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    @alephtav:disqus , thank you for your comment. It isn’t what I want. I blog about this topic regularly, and don’t think it is necessary or even appropriate to repeat all the same points in every post. And I encourage people to consult actual scientists – Evangelical Christian scientists, if they find them more trustworthy – to find out more about matters of science.

    @c210cce24216cf7979d685afaf44111c:disqus , given what you wrote, I can only assume that you have never read what an Evangelical Christian scholar has had to say about the creation stories in Genesis 1-3 in an academic commentary or other such volume. Gordon Wenham and John Walton are two such individuals who I would encourage you to consult. I think that once you realize just how badly young-earth creationism misuses the Bible and not just science, you will better understand where I am coming from on this.

  • Jason

    I don’t find your illustrations and arguements conclusive. Much of what you are saying seems to be ad hominem attacks against young earth creationists which is out of step with the humility of the new testament. Your arguements about the literary framework theory do not honestly admit that literal days are possible. You do not deal with the fact that Hebrew words can have a range of meanings. This is really less scientific and more just a whack against those who disagree with you. I have studied the scriptures extensively in Hebrew and Greek and find nothing textual to nullify a young earth understanding. Similarly, modern theories of evolution or earth age are just that…theories. so to call the leaders of the movement atheists (or to wonder if they are) is not justified. To call those who teach young earth theory charlitans and those that believe it gullible is not justified. In all of this you exhibit very little grace for those who disagree with you. Tell me does that speak well of the love Christ compells?

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    @cdbren:disqus , please stop being so dishonest. If you have not studied or read widely enough in biology to know that a whale is a mammal, then how could you possibly know whether there are mountains of evidence or not? You are clearly choosing to be ignorant of the relevant evidence by refusing to investigate the matter further, and just believe instead what you are told by false teachers and charlatans who tell you that your ignorance is a blessing.

    Until you take the time to actually find out what the evidence is, claiming that it isn’t there or isn’t substantial is clearly an act of dishonesty on your part.

    And for the record, sometimes evidence does speak for itself. If you find a bone somewhere, and someone was saying “there can’t possibly be bones there,” then the latter person is clearly wrong. Further information can probably be gleaned by a closer analysis. But facts and data are not infinitely flexible. The data itself precludes some views as simply false and not merely “different interpretations.”

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    @de30e64b9c7bc4b02e8238fe4a7d597f:disqus , I am sorry that my tone offends you. But since the young-earth creationists are misrepresenting the evidence about both the Bible and science (the issue is not whether the days in Genesis 1 are literal – even I agree about that), and are telling people that if evolution is true then Christianity is to be discarded as false, they are causing people to stumble and lose their faith, if they ever find out just how solid the case for evolution is. It is a theory in the scientific sense, not in the everyday sense.

    • Jason

      Well it is through scientific inquiry that I walked away from evolution (speaking of macro-evolution). So the case of evolution is not so solid. It is afterall, a theory and so is creationism.
      I agree that dealing with those that mislead should be done in seriousness but name calling is not helpful. Thanks for the reply :)

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

        re:
        Well it is through scientific inquiry that I walked away from evolution  

        if you have the scientific references that you read as part of this study i would be glad to look at them as well, if you’ll share them. 

      • Ian

        “it is through scientific inquiry” … then … “It is afterall, a theory”

        Priceless.

    • Anonymous

      James, please define “evolution” when you mention it.

      What evolution does is it sees natural selection working, mutations happening and that causes change across a species population as different environmental factors prompt change in characteristics. Then it makes a reaching and as yet proven statement that this means a fish can become a mouse or an ape eventually diverges to become a human. This is not observed nor is it proper science.

      Christians accept natural selection and change (evolution) as fact. Indeed, that is the way God designed creatures. With enough DNA variation ALREADY in the original species to allow some adaptation to differing environments. That is how we get all our species of birds, insects, fish, etc. today from the end of the world wide flood. Since it is inherited it can happen fast and has been shown to do so.

      The idea of common descent has not been proven and has no evidence. In fact it has much evidence to go against it. Gaps in the fossil record, species appearing suddenly, species disappearing suddenly, where information comes from, no evidence of new complex information appearing in the genome, mathematical formulations against random chance, entropy…and the list goes on.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Cdbren, once again I must protest your dishonest misrepresentation. Your lack of familiarity with evidence does not mean the evidence is not there. The same evidence that Ken Ham cited from the Human Genome Project to point to humanity’s common descent correlates with other genomic evidence to demonstrate the common descent of humans and other living things. The same evidence, the same tools, but YECs refuse to draw the logical conclusion in one case that they are willing to draw in another – not because anything is different other than their willingness to do so.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

      I am extremely happy to see Ken Ham supporting a single point source of all human beings, i’m glad to see him using science from the human genome project. i am interested in the American Civil War, most of the southern theologians taught a Hammetic theory that has noah’s family creating the human races, a multiple point source. K.H. could have hearkened back to that erroneous and dangerous way of thinking. it is to his credit that he resisted the racist right wing of his own movement and wrote _one race, one blood_ and continues to preach it. credit to whom credit is due.

  • Anonymous

    cdbren-
    Evolution is change is a gene pool over time. My definition has never changed, and if I have indicated otherwise, I apologize.

    Do you understand what entropy is in the second law of thermodynamics? Can you explain it for us?

    • Anonymous

      Re; aaron: Change? That could mean a lot of different things and a broad range as well.

      Change in the gene pool could simply mean big beak, small beak, long legs, small legs, red feathers, pink feathers. This would be a change of body plan that is already available in those genes.

      Or it could mean new complex information that could readjust bones, ligaments, blood vessels, etc. and basically change the entire body plan of an individual. This kind of change would be stopped by natural selection in it’s tracks at each small step. Now if it were a big step, then natural selection + mutations does not account for that kind of complex information appearing that fast.

      Again, I don’t think anyone would deny that species populations can change their characteristics. The point is that complex information for complex structures not appearing in those populations does not come from random, unintelligent processes.

  • Anonymous

    cdbren, do you think all death, including animal, plant, fungi, bacteria death was caused by the fall?

    Yep it says “very good”. Notice it doesn’t say “Perfect”

    The KJV, though beautiful, is an inaccurate translation. The NRSV has “but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die”

    • Anonymous

      aaron, the Hebrew term “very good” does mean perfect in the widest sense.

      So if we take Genesis as you stated then they would have dropped dead on the spot. Since they did not, you want to incorrectly add in “spiritually” right before the word “die”.

      Somehow I don’t see that word in any translation. How did it get there? You would need to insert it in there. Then we see that God cut them off from the tree so that they would not “live forever”. Gen. 3:22

      Um, you are going to have to get your scissors out and cut those two words out of your bible as well. Maybe you could add to God’s words to “spiritually live forever” as James has done with “spiritual death”.

      • Anonymous

        Can you site your source for the Hebrew meaning perfect?

        Nope, I don’t add spiritually. Here is a perfect example of where you miss a point of the genesis story because you think it’s about the age of the earth. God says to Adam that he will kill him, but when Adam does so, God shows mercy and does not kill him. God shows mercy. That’s the point. Isn’t it great! God shows mercy! I completely missed how the God of the old testament is a God of mercy as a fundie, but after studying the bible again I was amazed at how many times God is merciful that I missed!

        • Anonymous

          aaron, meod towb has the meaning of perfectness.

          Yes, God is merciful throughout scripture. (However God never says to Adam “I will kill you”.)

          • Anonymous

            Richard and James both pointed out that it doesn’t mean perfect, either in the Hebrew or the context of Genesis. Thats probably why bible translators all translate it as “very good” and not “absolutely perfect”

            “God never says to Adam “I will kill you””… “for in the day that you eat of it you shall die”
            Sounds pretty clear to me. Do me a favor. Write to your Congressmen or the President. Tell her or him that “the day you pass (name some bill they are voting for) you shall die. Tell me how that goes :)

            You are trying to twist the words of Genesis to fit your view of it as a 100% factual historical document. 

            • Anonymous

              aaron, your basic reading skills are lacking.

              It’s the fruit or the act of disobeying a stated rule that is what will kill Adam. Again, God did not ever say he would kill Adam.

              It’s sort of like me telling you not to stick your hand in the fire or it will burn you and then you go ahead and do it. Then you try to blame me for your burns.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    While the Christianity depicted in the Book of Acts is one that could hold its own on the Areopagus, and recognize not only disagreements with Greek philosophies but also quote from them on points of agreement, Ken Ham’s version of Christianity is one that has to advise people away from places of learning lest it crumble before careful and critical analysis. That really says something.

    Cdbren, it has never been a matter of dispute that one can read the stories in Genesis in the way that you do. The question is whether one should, and whether, even if one reads them in that way, one should treat Scripture written to communicate important points to pre-scientific people in a way that treats their limited pre-scientific knowledge as authoritative. Most feel that it is possible to appreciate the point of Genesis 1 and its depiction of God as creator, while also recognizing that that key theological point was couched in pre-scientific cosmology for ancient Israelite readers.

    Fundamentalism doesn’t like the Bible as it is, because it wasn’t written directly to them. But that is their problem, and not God’s or the Bible’s.

    On the question of nakedness, that aspect of the story makes perfect sense as describing an aspect of human existence in general, and not just the experience of a prototypical couple. Presumably you at some point had the same experience of transitioning from running around naked unabashed to being conscious of nakedness and covering yourself.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Cdbren, do please read my comment to which you are referring. I was pointing out that one common conservative Christian interpretation of the death referred to in Genesis 3 would make the problem of living things dying prior to the Fall a non-issue. I was (as anyone who has been paying attention to this discussion could surely figure out) NOT advocating that particular approach to the interpretation of the story. I was merely highlighting why even for conservative Christians, who are the most likely to be duped by young-earth creationist claims, adherence to YEC does not flow naturally from their understanding of the Genesis story.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Cdbren, the Hebrew phrase translated “very good” means something very similar to the English phrase “very good” with which it is translated. Hebrew is a language, not a magical code.

    • Anonymous

      James, please stop twisting words to mean what you want them to mean.

      Meod: vehemently, exceedingly, wholly, intensive

      Towb: good, as an adjective “in the widest sense”.

      God’s creation was exceedingly, intensely, in the widest sense “good”.

      But for sake of argument, lets magically believe that it just means the same as the English words “very good”.

      Again, your logic and thought processes are extremely flawed as you think “death” and things breaking down is very good. If you don’t think that death and destruction in creation would be “very good” then you will have to humble yourself and admit that death was not present in God’s creation. (Until after Adam and Eve sinned).

  • http://twitter.com/hortencelafonte Sean McLaughlin

    cdbren, first I would like to commend and encourage you brother.  This thread has been exhausting just to READ, I can’t imagine how taxing it must be for you to carry on in your defense of the Word in this hostile territory.  But rather than engage the debate on the grounds of science, grounds on which neither you, nor I, nor any Christian will likely ever gain a single conceding inch from James, I humbly suggest that we instead make a defense of the gospel.  You’ve demonstrated civility and restraint in the face of James’ ad hominem attacks.  Perhaps it is an error on our part as believers when we are willing to engage in such a discourse based solely on someone’s profession of faith.  Yet the Bible tells us in 2 Peter 2:1-3:

    “But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will
    be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive
    heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on
    themselves swift destruction.
    And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed.
    By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long
    time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber.”

    and Jude 1:4:

    “For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out
    for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into
    lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.”

    James would not readily admit to denying our Lord Jesus Christ, yet that is what he and any professing “Christian” accomplish in their embrace of evolution.  If you choose to accept the theory of evolution you are certainly free to do so, but you cannot logically reconcile this position with the gospel.  Anyone attempting to do so must be exposed as false, and not given a platform within the church to spread their heresy.  Paul was not afraid to call them out by name.  Evolution is a process predicated by the necessity of death.  If the gospel is true, death
    could not have existed prior to the fall.  Death was either a
    consequence of the fall and our subsequent sin nature (the wages of sin
    is death) or it was not.  Let’s examine the following passages:

    1 Corinthians 15:22 – “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.”

    Matthew 19:4 – “And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female.’”

    2 Corinthians 11:3 – “But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.”

    The Genesis account is either a literal historical account or the whole of scripture collapses, in which case Christ’s redemptive work on the cross and atonement for our sins is a fiction.  Or God is the author of death, in which case we live in a universe ruled by a malevolent deity.  In either case we have no hope.  We are lost like James is lost, for an
    embrace of evolution, or even an allowance for it as a legitimate
    discussion point within Christianity is subsequently a logical rejection
    of the gospel.

    I rest my case on Romans 1:16-25:

    “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.        
    For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”  For
    the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
    unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown [it] to them.  For
    since the creation of the world His invisible [attributes] are clearly
    seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] His eternal
    power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because,
    although they knew God, they did not glorify [Him] as God, nor were
    thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts
    were darkened.  Professing to be wise, they became fools, and
    changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like
    corruptible man–and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.  Therefore
    God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to
    dishonor their bodies among themselves, who
    exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the
    creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.”   

    James, you are sowing seeds of error and discord amongst the brethren.  I pray that you will come to a knowledge of the truth, and that which the Holy Spirit wrote through Paul in Ephesians 1:13 may be said of you.  “In Him you also [trusted], after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.”

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

      re:
      The Genesis account is either a literal historical account or the whole of scripture collapses, in which case Christ’s redemptive work on the cross and atonement for our sins is a fiction. 

      either-or, black v white, either my interpretation or atheism. despite the fact that only a small percentage of worldwide Christians believe as you do. this laager mentality, the whole world is out to get me, my faith is under assault from everywhere, circle the wagons, put your fingers in your ears and repeat the YEC-AiG mantras to keep the evil evolutionary science at bay.

      go read the flat earthers and geocentric websites, they clearly call you compromisers and the useful idiots of modern science because you have already allowed the modern (well 3rd C BCE) world to control your thinking and believe that the world is spherical and revolves around the sun in direct contradiction to Scripture.

      you are afraid of reading God’s book of works, of learning what marvelous things God hath wrought in this world of ours. you are afraid to modify your interpretation of Scripture because you have so completely identified it falsely with God’s own that you can’t see that you must interpret simply to read it. yet you have modified your interpretation, my church is a direct descendant of the southern church that justified slavery, yet with few exceptions does any modern person even know those arguments. generals sherman and grant changed the way the church read Scripture, period.

      my only hope is that YECism is so internally incoherent that it can not supply the truthfulness young growing discovering minds need and your children will leave the YECists churches when they begin to think for themselves.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

      re:
      James would not readily admit to denying our Lord Jesus Christ, yet that is what he and any professing “Christian” accomplish in their embrace of evolution.  If you choose to accept the theory of evolution you are certainly free to do so, but you cannot logically reconcile this position with the gospel.  Anyone attempting to do so must be exposed as false, and not given a platform within the church to spread their heresy.  

      it least you are honest in your appraisal that YECism is not only a salvation issue but THE major issue of salvation. it doesn’t matter if a person confesses Christ, or subscribes to any historic confession, the only thing necessary is to hate evolutionary theory. there is no compromise, there is no alternative, there is no reconciliation. ET is fully evil and in direct opposition to the Gospel. essentially making YECist the only possible True Christians™, congratulations you’ve managed to excommunicate about 80% of the world’s Christians. i wonder if they will agree with you on the absolute necessity of disbelieving ET. i’m certainly glad my church doesn’t practice what you preach.

      i wonder why this isn’t written into any of the historic confessions of the church? perhaps you can point us to your denomination’s website for your confession which must begin with something like: “the world is only 6kya and evolution is evil and demonic and only those who confess this truth will be able to go to heaven”

      • http://twitter.com/hortencelafonte Sean McLaughlin

        Richard, are you going to even attempt to refute the scriptural defense I gave, or is this straw man the best you can offer?

  • Anonymous

    Sean and Ken, 

    I would like to extend my same challenge to you as I did to cdbren:

    Prove to me that to Book of Mormon is not exactly, historically, 100% true. 

    I am prepared to defend the historicy of the BOM with the exact same methods both of you have used to attack modern science.

    • http://twitter.com/hortencelafonte Sean McLaughlin

      Another straw man argument.  Please respond to the specific scriptural defense I gave.

    • Anonymous

      aaron, there is no need as neither Sean nor Ken is attacking modern science.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

        re:
        evolution has changed since Darwin’s time. 

        i know, that is why the genetic data from fruit flies in the 1920-30 created the term neo darwinian synthesis, but my observation was historical, including even the date 1910 in order that people would know what stage of scientific development the various theologians (warfield, machen by name) were interacting with. in many significant ways YECism is a reaction to late 19th-early 20thC ET as it had a layer of social darwinianism and purposefulness/teleology that has since been been eliminated from ET.

  • Masdec77

    I agree with Sean Sean McLaughlin

  • Anonymous

    Sean you didn’t give a “scriptural defense” (whatever that is). You used proof texting to call us heretics.

    • http://twitter.com/hortencelafonte Sean McLaughlin

      Proof texting implies taking something out of context to support a position.  How is the scripture I provided taken out of context?  Does the scripture and its context mean what it states or does it mean something else, and if it means something else, how do you arrive at that conclusion?  That’s why I keep coming back to the scripture, the scripture, the scripture! Because “All Scripture is given by inspiration of
      God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
      instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”  If you reject scripture, refer to yourself as something other than a Christian.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

        re:
        As for the original Greek word ‘pas’ for the english word ‘all’, enlighten me please as to which parts of scripture ARE inspired by God and which are not.   

        re:
        Because “All Scripture is given by inspiration ofGod, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, forinstruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”  

        what exactly is the author of 2 timothy 3:16 referring to with the term “Scripture”?  after answering that, then we can ask how the term “all” modifies it? 

        • http://twitter.com/hortencelafonte Sean McLaughlin

          Yes Richard, thank you for restating the question I asked of Aaron.  So I will direct the question to you: What specific portions of the Bible do you consider to be ‘given by inspiration of God’?  Every instance in which Jesus responded to either Satan or a satanically-inspired critic, He would do so by citing scripture.  “It is written…”.  So, Richard, what scripture is scripture?

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

            it seems important to ask the questions in a logically order, partly because the more basic answers are assumed in the more secondary questions, partly as a check that we are using the words in a similar way.

            first, what does the author of 2tim mean when he says “scripture”?
            2-then what does the modifier “all” do to that definition?
            3-then we can ask what he means with πνέω pneō, it’s unfortunate our english word has the direction opposite the greek. more room for disagreement.
            4-then we have to ask what my relationship is to the book of timothy, what do i believe about it, in particular it’s authority? 
            5-how do i know this, ie how do i justify these answers 
            6-what is the role of my interpretive community in supplying me with both the questions and the answers to these kinds of inquiries.
            only then does a question like: “what scripture is scripture?” even make sense to ask. 

  • Masdec77

    To aaronpxian

    re: Ken, I would just like to tell you that I almost walked away from my
    faith because of you. I had to rethink my entire childhood faith because
    of you and your lies. By simply learning critical thinking skills and
    logical fallacies in college I had to reject everything I had learned
    from you. I think you know you are being dishonest too. How could I
    still take AiG arguments after learning about slippery slope, circular
    reasoning, ad hoc, etc etc etc? You try to scare people away from real
    universities because you know they will learn critical thinking skills
    there. I cannot contain my utter disgust for you and your lies and how
    you fooled and doped me as an innocent child to believe that crap. Thank
    God that there were Christians likes James who were honest with science
    and the biblical text or else I would not be a Christian today.

    and re: I also experienced a lot of fear, always worried that the next
    scientific discovery would destroy my faith and running to AiG after
    every piece of new science came out or they found a fossil. I drew my
    confidence to challenge scientists and my science teacher from the
    persecution complex- I was being persecuted, therefore it showed that
    God was on my side because God’s people had always been persecuted.

    You may have been taught this information, but it sounds like you were taught the information but not grounded in it.  If you are truly strong in your faith (no matter what your faith) you would not fear science destroying your beliefs.  I’m not sure what Church/Denomination teaches persecution as its foundation for holding to your beliefs, but maybe that was the problem.  I don’t think Ken Ham or Young Earth Creationists had anything to do with you almost walking away from your faith.  I think you were not firmly grounded to begin with.

    All people believe in something (whether it is right or wrong).  The strength of their convictions, their faith, hold them to those beliefs.  If it is not a strong one it is easy to be persuaded to some other belief.  You can see this in the number of times the Isrealites worshiped idols while still “following” God.

    To everyone:  You can over think any situation.  Sometimes a red square is just a red square.  It doesn’t need to be anything else.

    • Anonymous

      You don’t know me, so you have no right to judge the strength of my faith, either then or now. I was the kid who learned at an early age that birds do not come from dinosaurs, and I told my friends at church that. I participated in AWANAS and Wednesday night faithfully. I was the kid who sat in sunday school and read through not only the chapter surrounding the verses we were talking about, but all the notes in my study bible on the verse, chapter, and book, while everyone else gave the typically sunday school answers and talked about fantasy football. I was the kid that spent hours and hours reading ICR and AiG my sophomore year in high school to write extended notes all over my biology papers about how my teacher was wrong. I then spent half a class arguing with her to let me write a book review on a creation science book. I helped start and lead a bible study at my high school that still continues nearly 9 years after it’s founding. I was the kid when everyone else at Dare to Share in our group just wanted to pray for people, I went after the homeless guy with the cart and tried to explain to him that I can show Jesus was a historical person. I was the kid that spent my time in my computer class in high school arguing with evolutionists on the National Geographic website. I was the kid that spent hours on weekends looking at apologetics such as CARM, Christian answers, soaking myself in Ron Rhodes book against Mormons, etc etc etc. I even tried to convert the Mormon missionaries on several occasions.I did not ‘choose’ to believe in evolution anymore than I choose to not believe in unicorns. I choose to stop living in a lie.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Cdbren, how can you possibly claim to know the meaning of words in a language that you don’t even know enough about to transliterate decently into English letters?

  • Masdec77

    Well, I’ll just say one more thing: to each his own and we will all find out someday.  May your faith in Jesus Christ as Lord be strong and no matter what you decide to believe, never stop believing that he died and rose again for all of us.  This is the most important point in all of this.  God bless and keep you all.

  • Anonymous

    “Prooftexting (sometimes “proof-texting” or “proof texting”) is the practice of using isolated quotations from a document to establish a proposition.” -from wikiNone of the verses you quoted have anything to do with whether Genesis is a scientific account. They are either a) Talking about heretics (which you imply are us) or b) using parts of the Genesis story to illustrate a theological point.

    • http://twitter.com/hortencelafonte Sean McLaughlin

      Wow, this is exasperating.  Again, proof-texting implies taking a passage out of context to support a position. The scriptures I provided state that death originated with the sin of a literal Adam.  If by proof-texting you mean that any scripture reference should be disallowed from the debate, then again I must ask why you consider yourself a Christian when you don’t believe the Bible.

      As for the original Greek word ‘pas’ for the english word ‘all’, enlighten me please as to which parts of scripture ARE inspired by God and which are not.  Now we are entering the Rob Bell/Brian McLaren/Emergent Church school of theology.

  • Anonymous

    “And the LORD God commanded the man, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.” Genesis 2:16-17 NRSV. 
    Note for the NRSV reads: “The threat need penalty of death for eating the fruit will not be carried out, probably due to God’s compassion for his fallible creatures.
    Day in Hebrew is Yom, which AiG assures us means a literal, 24 hour period. Unless its this verse, or Genesis 2:4b, because that would make it look like there were two creation stories.

    • Anonymous

      aaron, it was carried out. Adam is dead.

      If it wasn’t carried out then Satan didn’t lie. So therefore Eve was not deceived. So therefore there wouldn’t be sin and thorns and death today.

      Looks clear to me that the penalty was carried out in full.

  • Anonymous

    Adam did not exist. DNA evidence from the genome project (the same one Ken Ham quotes) show that humans could have come from no less than a population of 10k.
    Genesis 2:4b-5b (Where the J creation story begins):In that day the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up…”

    • Anonymous

      aaron, I am speechless.

      Let me guess. The genome project found something that they need a very large population to explain so they make up the idea that humans had to come from a population of at least 10K to match their evidence. Because if mankind came from just two parents, then it would match their findings and that CAN’T be true. Nope.
      ——–
      My bible says plants are already there in Genesis 2, just not in the garden God just created for Adam.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

        re:
         The genome project found something that they need a very large population to explain so they make up the idea that humans had to come from a population of at least 10K to match their evidence. Because if mankind came from just two parents, then it would match their findings and that CAN’T be true. 

        the most interesting and accessible reasoning(imho) can be found looking for: population bottlenecks and the toba volcano. the math of minimum population size given today’s human genetic diversity is rather difficult for the layman(i can not follow the math, diffeq and engineering math is not sufficient background), you can access much of it by looking for: chimp early human population diversity, what you are looking for is the reasons human diversity is abnormally low esp as compared to chimps, there are several other ways into the literature i know of, others here certainly have more if you ask. (iceland & decodeme, diversity of african populations v european etc)

        science couldn’t care less about the adam and eve story, not even to rebuttal it. it has no standing or place in science except as a culturally shared common language as in title of book _the seven eves_. you flatter YECism to imagine they even care to fight it, it is irrelevant.

        • Anonymous

          Re, Richard: “the most interesting and accessible reasoning(imho) can be found looking
          for: population bottlenecks and the toba volcano. the math of minimum
          population size given today’s human genetic diversity is rather
          difficult for the layman(i can not follow the math, diffeq and
          engineering math is not sufficient background), you can access much of
          it by looking for: chimp early human population diversity, what you are
          looking for is the reasons human diversity is abnormally low esp as
          compared to chimps, there are several other ways into the literature i
          know of, others here certainly have more if you ask. (iceland &
          decodeme, diversity of african populations v european etc)”

          In other words, the diversity is slim so we must have come from a larger main group?

          For instance, pre-Noah times had 10K people. Then off the Ark everyone alive today is descendant from 4 sets of parent groups, resulting in a small range of diversity. Just like the genome project discovered?

          • Ian

            Just to FYI. I have no desire to debate any of this.

            10k is the ‘effective population size’ of the human species. Which measures a lower bound on the possible size of the human species as far back as at least 1mya. Beyond there, it is harder to track the genetic markers used in this study, so the error bars increase, but it is thought the effective population size is larger further back than that. Either way, it doesn’t rescue Adam and Eve, since the effective population size shows that there could not have been less than 10k individuals in the human population. So no Adam and Eve, and no Noah and his sons. The evidence disproves that. There could have been a lot more than 10k, but we can say that if there were then they didn’t have any reproductive impact on the modern human population.

            10k is a very slim diversity comparatively. It is not a big group. Obviously it seems large when you’ve been told that we all came from 2 people, but in comparison with other great apes, for example, it is very small.

            • Anonymous

              Thanks for explaining, Ian. Do you know the name of the study?

              • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

                i’ve spent the last few hours following links in our conversation and in J.McG’s sidebar. i found this worth sharing here:

                it is from:
                http://www.amazon.com/review/R35VCD0KE75LVF/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt 
                My quote from “American Fascists” by Chris Hedges (available at amazon.com) perfectly describes the barking-mad purveyors of the ‘Fred and Wilma Flintstone Museum of Unnatural History’ over at Answers in Genesis (AiG):”They seek the imprint of science and scholarship to legitimize myth. The ‘paraprofessional’ organizations formed by the Christian right, organizations of teachers, journalists, doctors, lawyers and scientists, mimic the activities of real professional groups. They seek to challenge the legitimacy and the power of the traditional organizations. The duplication of the structures and methods employed by the non-totalitarian world, the use of pseudo-science to dress up fantasy, is slowly undermining our legitimate scientific and educational institutions. It is destroying the foundations of our open society. It is ushering us into a world where lies are true.”Misrepresentation and error are their (and your) modus operandi and stock-in-tirade – Chris succinctly captures the ultimate goals and objectives of the entire lying for Jesus movement. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

      re:
      Nowhere does it say to integrate them into one creation story, all the textual evidence says not to.  

      re:
      DNA evidence from the genome project (the same one Ken Ham quotes) show that humans could have come from no less than a population of 10k. 

      we have to interpret the Bible, the simple act of reading IS by its very nature an act of interpretation. what is the relationship of Gen1 and Gen2,3? was The Man a real individual? are all humans descended from a primordial pair? what is the relationship between the two books of God: of Works & of Words? how do we use science to adjust our interpretation of Scripture? is hermenuetics to Scripture the same as epistemology to science? if there is an apparent conflict what takes priority/precedence, my interpretation of Scripture or my understanding of science? all of these get answered in our minds before we even open The Book to read it.

      for me, Gen1 and Gen2,3 are very different and can not be simply lined up and reconciled into a single narrative.

      if Adam is a real man then he is a prototype king and fits into the sumerian king’s list theory. therefore there is no need to propose they(A&E) are the progenitors of all mankind, thus i don’t look to genetics to support Gen2,3, it doesn’t. this is consistent with federal headship explanations, which is the really BIG point of Rom.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jason.attig Jason Attig

    //Either way, it doesn’t rescue Adam and Eve, since the effective
    population size shows that there could not have been less than 10k
    individuals in the human population. So no Adam and Eve, and no Noah
    and his sons. The evidence disproves that.//

    Gen 4:14 Behold, You have driven me this day from the face of the ground; and from Your face I will be hidden, and I will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

    Here is the problem, a lone Adam, Eve and their two sons doesn’t exist in scripture either.  Cain should be concerned about being eaten by a dinosaur going off into the wild, away from where the other two people were, but instead he is concerned about people finding him and killing him, and goes to find a wife.  Perhaps he is being proactive as in a few hundred years the daughters of Eve could churn out quite the army to hunt him down.. OR there were already anatomically modern human beings throughout the Earth where Cain would be wandering.

    It says God made Adam from the dirt of the ground and then placed him in the garden.  Is it important that the text does not say he was created ex nihilo in the garden?  Is it possible that the way in which this is the first man is in the sense of having enhanced self awareness, morality, language (naming animals), agriculture (tilling the ground), ability of worship, and all the attributes Adam is listed as having, but that the process of making us from the dirt involved several billion years, along with the other animals being made from same ‘dirt.’  In that sense, the evidence does support man establishing those attributes that Adam is listed with in the area of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.  There we see the first city states, established religion, written language and so on.

    Genesis is inspired, and by that I mean prophetic not just holding reflective truths.  It’s also a little bit historic, (they did build giant ziggaruts, Ur was an actual place and there was a regional flood), but there is a parable, allegorical aspect also.  Therefore I believe the middle way, between literalism and myth is the most appropriate in approaching the text.

  • Ken Ham

    By the way, in this one item he uses the following type of language to describe what we believe and to describe our character: “charlatans,” “bizarre attempts,” “twisted approach,” “deceitful claim,” “ garbage,” “hijack Scripture,” “twisted ends,” “misconstrue,” “hypocrisy and lying,” “atheists seeking to do harm,” “foolish,” “misguided,” “sowing misinformation,” and “falsehood and division.” And that is to name just a few! Wow, the language is not very academic at all for a professor, who is obviously very angry at us because we take God’s Word seriously and submit to it.

    Well, I thought the best way to answer this twisting of Scripture is to quote from an article by AiG staff writer and researcher, Tim Chaffey (Th.M., M.Div.) and Dr. Bob McCabe (Th.D., Th.M., professor of Old Testament at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary). They wrote an article about the compromise position of the Framework Hypothesis, which appears in our recent apologetics book, How Do We Know the Bible Is True? In this article they deal with the issue of supposed parallels in the days of creation.
    The Two Triads of “Days” argument is a premise that all Framework advocates agree with. Framework supporters claim that the two triads of “days” is a topical parallelism where the topics of days 1–3 are parallel with those of days 4–6. About the parallel nature of days 1 & 4, Mark Futato states, “Days 1 and 4 are two different perspectives on the same creative work.”3 Returning to the overall topical arrangement the entire creation account, Kline writes, “The successive members of the first triad of days [days 1–3] correspond to the successive days of the second [days 4–6].”4 In other words, days 1 and 4 are simply two different ways of stating the same event, as are days 2 and 5, and days 3 and 6. The following chart is representative of that used by many Framework advocates and reflects this topical parallelism.5DayFormation of the World
    (Items Created)DayFilling of the World (Items Created)1darkness, light4heavenly light-bearers2heavens, water5birds of the air, water animals3seas, land, vegetation6land animals, man, provision of foodAt first glance, it may seem as if these writers are on to something. However, a closer look reveals some problems with this argument.First, this supposed semi-poetic construction is inconsistent with the fact that Genesis 1 is a historical narrative. Hebrew scholar Steven Boyd has clearly shown that Genesis 1 is written as historical narrative rather than poetry. Hebrew poetry commonly utilizes a high percentage of imperfect and perfect verbs. By contrast, Hebrew narrative is marked by a high frequency of waw-consecutive preterite verbs that indicate a sequence of events in past tense material. Comparing Judges 4 and 5 shows a good example of these differences. In Judges 4, the account of Deborah and Barak defeating the forces of Sisera is explained in historical narrative. The following chapter is a poetical song describing the same event. The difference in language is readily apparent even in English translations. The same is true with the historical narrative of Genesis 1 and poetic descriptions of creation activities such as those found in Psalm 104. After studying and cataloging 522 texts, Boyd concluded that Genesis 1 can be classified as narrative with a probability of virtually one.6Second, the above chart is inconsistent with the text of Genesis 1:1–2:3. Water was not created on the second day, but the first. Genesis 1:2 states, “The Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.” This occurred prior to the creation of light on the first day. So perhaps days 1 and 5 should be viewed as parallel. Another problem with this chart is that the “heavenly light-bearers” of day 4 were placed in the “heavens” of day 2 (Genesis 1:14). This is problematic for the Framework advocate who believes days one and four are the same event viewed from different perspectives, because this must have occurred prior to the event described in days 2 and 5. How could the stars be placed in something that did not exist yet?Third, the order of events is crucial here. The Framework proposes that the days are not chronological, but theological. However, if one rearranges the chronology, then it breaks down into absurdity. The waters of day 1 must exist for them to be separated on day 2. On day 3, the dry land appeared from these waters. The sun, moon, and stars of day 4 were placed in the heavens (expanse, firmament) of day 2. The birds of day 5 flew on the face of the firmament of day 2 and multiplied on the land of day 3. Finally, mankind was made to rule over all of creation (Genesis 1:28). Any attempt to rearrange days of the creation week forces impossibilities into the text.In the final analysis, the Framework’s reinterpretation of Genesis 1:1–2:3 as a topical account of two triads of days is an illegitimate approach that fails to accurately interpret the creation account

    • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      Ken Ham,

      I use scholarly ways of describing things which are argued logically and make sense. But your comment illustrates why I treat what you write in the way that I do: it is bizarre nonsense. For instance, who ever suggested that, because the “framework” view recognizes parallelism between the days, that it is therefore advocating rearranging the days?

      Seriously, how do you come up with this stuff, and more importantly, why do you come up with this stuff? And if you cannot comprehend and accurately describe what mainstream conservative Evangelical Biblical scholars write about the Bible, why should anyone believe your claim to “take God’s Word seriously and submit to it”? If you actually put the effort into understanding it that you put into misrepesenting mainstream Biblical scholarship and science, you would be spending your time far more usefully.

      • Ken Ham
      • Ken Ham

        The Framework Hypothesis is an ingenious attempt to reinterpret Genesis 1. Using sophisticated arguments, its promoters have convinced many that the plain words of Genesis 1 should be reclassified as something other than straightforward-historical narrative. As such, the words dealing with the how and when of Creation are ignored.
        This brief survey has shown the erroneous arguments posed by its supporters. This view may be more dangerous than any harmonistic view since it encourages believers to ignore the text, essentially turning it into a divine Aesop’s Fable. Does it really matter if a slow but persistent tortoise ever really raced a speedy hare and won? Of course not, as long as you understand the moral of the story—persistence pays off. In a similar way, Framework proponents minimize the force of the many textual details of the creation account as long as one believes God is the Creator and that He made man in His image. It is simply the latest in a long line of failed attempts to reinterpret the unchanging word of God to fit man’s ever-changing opinions and should be rejected by all Bible-believing Christians.

        • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

          Now now, Ken Ham, don’t sell your own ingenious reinterpretation of Genesis 1 short! It does an impressive job of persuading people to adopt something other than a straightforward interpretation of Genesis 1, and as such far excels anything mainstream scholarship on the Bible has come up with. I mean, the mainstream interpreters are simply highlighting things that are there in the text. But you manage to get people to ignore the interpretative cues in the text, and ignore mainstream science, and yet believe that they are being faithful not only to the Bible but to “real science.”

          I doubt that there are many people who have done a better job of getting people to identify their own ideas with the Word of God while simultaneously getting them to reject as “the teaching of men” what Christian interpreters have to say who are far more concerned with the actual text, the original languages, and the original context than you ever care to be.

          I obviously don’t think people ought to go along with what you are doing. But as deceptions go, it is really impressive.

  • Ken Ham

    This was a failed attempt to discredit Answers in Genesis and any Christian who holds to a literal Genesis as they should. Dr. James F. McGrath (Clarence L. Goodwin Chair in New Testament Language and Literature at Butler University, Indianapolis) tries to use the old argument of supposed parallels in the days of creation in an attempt to discredit Genesis as historical narrative.

  • Andrew Snelling

    I am first and foremost a Bible-believing Christian. God’s Word, the Bible, is thus my ultimate absolute authority in all matters. The Bible is not a science textbook (thankfully, because science textbooks are always subject to change!). However, since the Bible is God’s Word, where it records details about the earth’s history it is absolutely true.
    Therefore, when God tells us in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:8–11, and writes with His own finger on stone tablets in Exodus 31:15–18, that He created everything in the universe in six days compared to the days of our work week, I believe Him! And Jesus Christ, the Creator Incarnate (John 1:1–3, 14 and Colossians 1:15–17) taught that God created all things and that Adam and Eve were there at the beginning of creation, not billions of years after the beginning (Mark 10:6, 13:19).

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

      you pick and choose what to read literally.
      you don’t keep slaves and justify it using the hammetic verses as our grandfathers in the faith like r. dabney did. this is a really big deal almost a million Christians died defending and killing for their opinion on this issue, which was only solved by one side winning.you go to a doctor rather than an exorcist to cast out demons since you want to be healthy and exorcists have a deserved bad rep. even though Jesus himself both cast out demons and told his disciplines to do so.you believe the world is spherical unlike the writers of the Bible who thought it flat. you probably don’t believe hell is under your feet in the center of the earth. nor heaven above the firmament which holds back the waters above.you think heliocentrically rather than the biblical geocentricism. you use modern genetics to breed animals rather than peeling the bark on almond branches.but you do believe the world is 6kya, and you will not compromise anymore with the world’s view of things, congrats you have only compromised half the scientific teachings of Scripture.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

      re:
      His own finger on stone tablets 

      is this an anthropomorphism?
      if so, then why can’t the six day creation week be an accommodation to our limited thinking? ie an anthropomorphism of time, an explanation in our mental terms. a framework to shape the thinking and activity of the Israelites on a daily basis?

      or did a massive literal finger write those tablets of stone?
      if so, what was it attached to? 

    • http://www.rethinkingao.com Mike Beidler

      And AiG brings out the big guns!  Andrew Snelling, ladies and gentlemen.

      It’s sad to see such intelligent individuals develop such an entrenched scientific paradigm based on (1) a severe misreading of Genesis 1-11 with no attention paid to genre (does AiG even have a scholar in ancient Near Eastern literature within their ranks?), and (2) a complete lack of understanding of the principle of accommodation.  If both of these issues would be rectified, Evangelical Christianity would be so much healthier, both in material and spiritual terms.

      So much money is poured into young-earth creationist organizations and literature that could be better put to use living out the Kingdom of Christ amongst people who couldn’t care less about how old the earth is and concern themselves more with how to put food on their table or have enough money to replace the spare tire they’ve been driving with much longer than is safe.  Likewise, mainstream scientific organizations and theistic evolutionists wouldn’t have to pump the bookshelves full of material to counter AiG’s and ICR’s folk science and could put their cash to better use.

      In spiritual terms, young-earth apologetics machines have produced in inordinate amount of cognitive dissonance within the ranks of the Church that requires them to check their brains in at the door and follow shepherds who have no business telling them how to read Genesis 1-11.  God gave us minds capable of great things and understanding complex fields of study, and if we don’t use them our spiritual lives will suffer as a result.

      Unlike James, I don’t believe Ham, Snelling, et al, are charlatans at all and I’m convinced that they truly believe what they preach.  I commend them for standing up for what they believe.  The effort put into YEC materials and conferences is truly admirable.  But what they preach is not true, and with every year that goes by, more and more young people are driven to abandon their faith in the Savior.  And because of that, we must counter their teachings in the name of Jesus Christ.

      • Anonymous

        “Does AiG even have a scholar within their ranks”

        I’m sure they have a couple people with Ph. Ds from uber-conservative Christian colleges that only teach one point of view and have statements of belief you need to adhere to (check out this one: http://www.rmbc.edu/doctrinal_statement.html) before writing in their journals. I wonder why I supposed to take seriously articles from these places because they are arguing something they have to believe in order to work there and write in their journals! I suppose I should start listening to the North Korean journalists when they talk about how North Korea is such a more wonderful place than the rest of the world. 

        However though, AiG does see fit to publish articles in their “technical journals” from people such as James Patrick Holding, who is an internet apologist with a degree in library science and no working knowledge of ancient Hebrew; but is apparently able to give a qualified critique of biblical criticism and the Hebrew language such as here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v14/n3/flat-earth.

        There is a reason you won’t see this in real biblical studies journals. 

    • Anonymous

      Andrew Snelling, I believe this would be right up your alley:

      Please explain how a global flood deposited deep in the geological column the following:

      rain drops, river channels, wind-blown dunes, beaches, glacial deposits, burrow, in place trees, soil, desiccation cracks, footprints, meteorites and meteor craters, coral reefs, and cave systems.

      Then after you are done with that, you can explain how the limestone, magma, and meteorites in the geological column all happened during the Global flood, and yet did not vaporize the oceans with the well over the 5.6×10^26 joules all that produced. 

      Heres the final catch though. I want you to not post your answer here. Instead, you are going to go publish it in a real scientific journal. You can’t give the excuse that they aren’t spiritual, or don’t believe in God and therefore won’t publish it because floods are completely natural events, and it would be an easy article to explain how things like that could form deep in the geological column by a flood without resorting to any God talk at all.

      Let us know what journal you published it to and well read it. 

      • Anonymous

        aaron, you are sadly mistaken. All those things you mentioned are consistent with different ideas on the flood scenario. Raindrops, in place trees and certain types of footprints would have to be covered quickly or they wouldn’t be there.

        The 5.6×10^26 joules is not accurate either. I believe if my calculations are correct that would not be enough to boil ocean water even if it were at the top of Mount Saint Everest.

        Going by a Yottajoule which would require 10^24 just to raise the entire volume of sea water on Earth by 1 degree Celsius you would need 9.6×10^24 just to get the ocean to boiling point. And that would be JUST AT SEA LEVEL.

        The yottajoule (YJ) is equal to 1024 joules. This is approximately the amount of energy required to heat the entire volume of water on Earth by 1 °Celsius.

        Water has the highest specific heat capacity of any known substance besides ammonia. 

        The boiling point of water (and all other liquids) is dependent on the barometric pressure. For example, on the top of Mt. Everest water boils at 68 °C (154 °F), compared to 100 °C (212 °F) at sea level.

        **Water deep in the ocean near geothermal vents can reach temperatures of hundreds of degrees and remain liquid.**

        —————
        You mention coal, oil and natural gas in the Earth and say they will produce a lot of heat. Actually if they did that the plant matter would not have decomposed at all since anaerobic digestion depends on a low heat range.

        The two conventional operational temperature levels for anaerobic
        digesters are determined by the species of methanogens in the digesters:

        Mesophilic digestion takes place optimally around 30 to 38°C, or at ambient temperatures between 20 and 45°C, where mesophiles are the primary microorganism present.

        Thermophilic digestion takes place optimally around 49 to 57°C, or at elevated temperatures up to 70°C, where thermophiles are the primary
        microorganisms present.

        …”mud from a frozen lake in Alaska” has produced 200–300 litres of
        methane per day, about 20 to 30% of the output from digesters in warmer
        climates.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaerobic_decomposition#Temperature

    • Ian

      “I am first and foremost a [my-interpretation-of-the-]Bible-believing Christian”

      “[my-interpretation-of-]the Bible, is thus my ultimate absolute authority in all matters” 

      “However, since [my-interpretation-of-]the Bible is God’s Word … it is absolutely true.”

      …As Moses flock do we all likewise stray / to craft our shepherd from familiar clay…

      “Jesus Christ … taught that … Adam and Eve were there at the beginning of creation” You couldn’t satirize this better if you tried…

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

      re:
      I am first and foremost a Bible-believing Christian. God’s Word, the Bible, is thus my ultimate absolute authority in all matters. The Bible is not a science textbook (thankfully, because science textbooks are always subject to change!). However, since the Bible is God’s Word, where it records details about the earth’s history it is absolutely true. 

      no, you are a first and foremost a member of a specific Biblical interpretive community which has taught you a specific way of reading the Scriptures which has unfortunately convinced you to identify its idiosyncratic interpretation with the very text itself.  

      you assume that reading the text is not by its very nature an interpretive act, you assume that the text is God’s own interpretation and your community has completely captured God’s interpretation and handed it directly into your mind. sadly you are so convinced that your community’s interpretation is the only possible interpretation that you believe it actually speaks for God himself.

      the truth is that the Bible is a text, that reading is interpretation, that we learn interpretation from our community, that there are lots of Biblical interpretive communities that say they are somehow accessing God’s own interpretation, and since they do not agree on what they find in the Bible they can not all be accessing God’s mind in some special way unless God is internally inconsistent.

      • Anonymous

        re: Richard: “the truth is that the Bible is a text, that reading is interpretation,
        that we learn interpretation from our community, that there are lots of
        Biblical interpretive communities that say they are somehow accessing
        God’s own interpretation, and since they do not agree on what they find
        in the Bible they can not all be accessing God’s mind in some special
        way unless God is internally inconsistent.”

        If you sincerely follow Jesus then Jesus himself affirmed Genesis. By rejecting Genesis you are rejecting Jesus’ words.

        The evidence, logic and mathematics clearly point to the bible as the truth and evolution from molecules to man the fairly tale.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

          re:
          If you sincerely follow Jesus then Jesus himself affirmed Genesis. By rejecting Genesis you are rejecting Jesus’ words.  

          i do not reject genesis, i reject the yecists misinterpretation of genesis, that is why i spend so much time on the discussion, because i think a more proper understanding of genesis is a very good thing for christians to have. since yecists are so loud, the voice of reason, and science and natural theology, is so often drowned out by their cries in the community i belong to.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

          re:
          If you sincerely follow Jesus then Jesus himself affirmed Genesis. By rejecting Genesis you are rejecting Jesus’ words.  

          Jesus believed that demons caused physical disease, i believe germs and genetics does. am i rejecting Jesus’ words?
          Jesus believe the earth was flat, that hell was beneath his feet and that heaven was just beyond the stars which were rather close, that they and the sun revolved around the earth, that the moon was a source of light not a mirror. that the earth was of recent creation. i believe in a universe 13M light years across, a spherical earth that is 4.5b years old, a heliocentric solar system. am i rejecting Jesus’ words?
          Jesus believed that slavery was an acceptable, normal, necessary, God ordained part of society, that patriarchy was the necessary organizational principle of the family, that polygamy was useful. i do not. am i rejecting Jesus’ words?

          • Anonymous

            Richard, Jesus did not believe the Earth was flat, that the sun revolved around the Earth, or that hell was under the earth.

            The moon is a source of light at night. It seemed like almost daylight here the last couple of nights.

            The Earth was of recent creation.

            Jesus did not believe in slavery. They didn’t even have slaves then.

            Your source of life is in your blood.

            I see Jesus healing people and the Pharisee’s thinking he was casting out demons. Then there were crazy people too who were possessed by demons. If you don’t think there are demon possessions today visit a mental ward sometime.

            And yes, you are rejecting God and Jesus. I am not sure where you get these notions but they are not from a clear study of scripture. I have doubts if you even read it sincerely on a daily basis.

            • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

              re:
              And yes, you are rejecting God and Jesus. I am not sure where you get these notions but they are not from a clear study of scripture. I have doubts if you even read it sincerely on a daily basis. 

              i’m curious, does anyone think this is a variation on the no true scotsman logical fallacy? i think it stems from the inability of yecists to distinguish between their interpretation of Scripture and the text itself. they simply can not believe that any True Christian™ like themselves could have any kind of variant reading/interpretation of Scripture.(no True Christian™ could possibly disagree with me for i believe exactly as Jesus did) 

              i’m often tempted to take it as an ad hominem and ignore it, but it is part of such a common pattern seen when discussing these things with yecists that i’d like to understand where it comes from and why it so often forms the last lines of their remarks/comments, as if to dismiss ideas simply because their opponents can’t really understand Scripture like they do(since they read it on a daily basis etc)

              my preference is to argue ideas and allow people their own faith commitment without my analysis of it’s significance in their lives intruding into the discussion, but that is just my thought.

              re:
              Jesus did not believe the Earth was flat, that the sun revolved around the Earth, or that hell was under the earth.  

              if he did it didn’t tell anyone *grin* but let everyone around him believe wrongly.

              the third temptation, the Ascension, and Christ’s bodily return from heaven only make sense in terms of a flat earth where the whole world is visible if you only go up high enough. 

              there are a number of late 7th-8thC Christians defending flat earth ideas as essential to the Gospel and the preservation of a godly worldview.
              what this one has is the alignment of a spherical earth with the pagans.
              http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/#Cosmas_Indicopleustes 

              the battle between geo and heliocentricism is so recent that lots of analysis of why Christians clung to the old system as thinking it a necessary confession/adherence to their faith.

              re:
              Your source of life is in your blood. 

              nonsense, thousands of people a year are put on artificial oxygen carriers, substitutes for blood each year and don’t die as a result of being without blood in their bodies.  there is no elan vital in blood.

              re:
              Jesus did not believe in slavery. 

              then it’s a real shame he didn’t teach his disciples that fact, it really would have saved a lot of human lives in the history of the conquest of the americas, if there had been even the smallest phrase against slavery in the NT(like the one against divorce) it would have rewritten our history and avoided a million causalities during the American Civil War. to say nothing about making the writing of _a defense of virginia and through her the south_ impossible and made the participation in the slave trade by Christians impossible.

              re:
               I am not sure where you get these notions but they are not from a clear study of scripture. 

              by reading history rather than ignoring it. sort of like how i read science rather than dismissing it out of hand. 

              • Anonymous

                Richard, the reason people say a person doesn’t understand scripture is because you continuously twist it, take it out of context, find meanings for it that are obviously not there, confuse the crusades and history of it with true Christianity and basically reject simple teachings from Jesus, all the while readily accepting others, like so called slavery.

                For instance, you dismiss that Jesus accepted Moses’ writings, creation, Adam and Eve, Jonah, and Job as real history and then accept the ridiculous idea that he condoned slavery and believed in a flat Earth. (Even though he was the one that created a round Earth himself.)

                Anyone who has done an in depth study of scripture and has a small amount of Jewish history can spot your many erroneous statements a mile away.

                • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                  Cdbren, the reason people say you don’t understand scripture is because you continuously twist it, take it out of context, find meanings for it that are obviously not there, distinguish everything embarrassing or inaccurate from “true Christianity” simply to avoid having to admit that Christians ever make real blunders, and basically reject simple teachings from Jesus such as his demand to give away all one possesses, while “translating” away others, like slavery. 

                  For instance, you insist that Jesus accepted Moses’ writings, creation, Adam and Eve, Jonah, and Job as real history, but then accept the ridiculous idea that he opposed slavery and disbelieved in a flat Earth or at least Ptolemaic cosmology, even though the Gospel of Luke depicts him not as someone who was born knowing everything, but as growing in wisdom.

                  Anyone who has done an in depth study of scripture and has a small amount of Jewish history can spot your many erroneous statements a mile away.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    There is a lot of repetition and not much substance to what “Ken Ham” is saying here. There is also citation of what, were they advocating any view other than his own, would be dismissed as the “works of men.”

    I wonder whether the “Ken Ham” who has been commenting here is one person employed to ghostwrite for him or several.

    Either way, it is one or several people, they can’t be said to be doing anything more than asserting that those who disagree with them are disagreeing with God. But of course, if the Bible is the Word of God, then the Answers in Genesis combination of alleged consistency and selective literalism is surely going to lead to their being severely judged.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    AiG seems to me to simply teach what is popular – among a certain category of fundamentalist Christians. It is popular in such circles to deny evolution, and so they pander to that. But there is no willingness to take a stand on the Biblical firmament, or the windows of the skies/heavens, or the fixity of the earth, or to attack the godless meteorologists who claim that the rain falling on the just and the unjust can be explained without any appeal to divine providence whatsoever.

    Biblical literalism would at least be consistent. Acknowledging that God was revealed in past contexts and the message needs to be reinterpreted for a different cosmology would be even more in keeping with what we find in the Bible. But to do what young-earth creationists do, to claim to be Bible-believing Christians while picking and choosing only those points at which it is popular among their fan base to disagree with mainstream science – that seems to me to be the worst sort of shameful hypocrisy.

  • Anonymous

    aaron, additionally

    3.3×10^31 J is the amount of energy the sun puts out each day.

  • Anonymous

    I’m not following where your 9.6 comes from. A Yotta Joule=10^24 joules. And I’m not quite sure I understand, as 9.6×10^24<5.6×10^26. By about 58 times. 
    It would be more than enough energy to vaporize the oceans. You have:
    8×10^24 grams of lava. Specific heat is .15. This would release 5.4×10^27 Joules. 
    5×10^23 grams of limestone. Remember that this is formed by billions upon billions of microscopic organisms. Calsite releases 11,290 Joules/gram. So thats 5.6×10^27 Joules. Heat from a large meteorite such as the one that hit the moon is around 3×10^26.

    All this is more than enough to vaporize all the water on earth and boil our atmosphere off of the planet. Just the numbers above total 1.13x 10^28 Joules.
    Which is funny because you bring up the energy released from the sun each day as 3.3x 10^31 is the amount of joules put out by the sun per day, 3.819 x10^26 is what the sun puts out each second. So you have an interesting problem. It seems to me that the amount of energy required for the flood to create the geological column is equivlent to around 30 seconds of energy produced by a 1.9891 x10^30kg nuclear fusion reaction! (Can someone check my math? I added all the above up to get 1.13×10^28 Joules, then divided 3.3×10^31 by 86400 sec/day and divided that number into 1.13x 10^28 and got 29.5ish. Does that make sense?)

    I don't think you understand that decay produces heat. Just because it needs to be at a certain temperature doesn't mean it is not producing heat.

  • Anonymous

    “aaron, you are sadly mistaken. All those things you mentioned are consistent with different ideas on the flood scenario. Raindrops, in place trees and certain types of footprints would have to be covered quickly or they wouldn’t be there.”
    Those things I listed can only originate on the surface and therefore if there was a global flood would not be deep in the geological column. For instance, we have instances of dinosaur footprints with water ripples in the layers above and below it, and we have dinosaur footprints on top of a coalseam.

    A global flood also fails to explain angular unconformities, which had to have had two periods of deposition and erosion, Millions of annual varves which are formed by lakes, and heratite layers, which could not form in an oxygen rich environment like we have today. Not to mention that the amount of fossils (remember again that most animals are not fossilized) would indicate an ecosystem so ridiculously full that it would be impossible to sustain life.

    • Anonymous

      aaron, I am not sure what you mentioned as happening during Noah’s flood. No one knows what happened then but scientists speculate that there were earthquakes, that the continents broke apart and that there was volcanic subduction beneath the ocean floor. Plant matter would have been buried and would have become coal and oil after compressed into the sediment layers. So this would have happened underground.

      Again, even if all that happened above ground, you’d need the intensity that the sun puts out each day just to start boiling the water at sea level. I doubt natural processes could even begin to put that kind of energy out.

      Footprints with ripples above and below makes sense in light of a large flood. Especially one that had rain every day.

      Varves they count in lakes are always counted per varve. Multiple snow storms and warm periods in winters would produce multiple varves. The layers they count in sediment layers are thought to be years as well but these were actually deposited by the worldwide flood in days or months as the water settled back down.

      I believe the amount of fossils we have found represent all the 250,000 species (not all of those are air breathing mammals) alive at the time of Noah. Today we have 1.3 different species.

      I really wonder why everyone is bringing the idea that there are too many animals and that they wouldn’t fit on the Earth.

      There are 300,000 white tailed deer in the U.S.A. There are 312 million people living in the U.S.A. right now and most have HOUSES. Yet there is still a great deal of land open for farming and forests. At one time 150,000 buffalo were alive in the west.

      So 312 million people, 300,000 deer, how many foxes, rabbits, horses, coyote, birds, otters, groundhogs, etc. are there? Yet we still have a lot of open land. Even with houses, stores, malls, etc. we still have plenty of open land.

      The 800 billion fossils predicted at Karoo has not been established as accurate. If it is, then they all died at one time and were buried rapidly. So I’d assume evolutionists would have the same explaining to do if the numbers are even close to being correct.

      • Anonymous

        cdbren, what part of the math did you not understand? Morris and creationists have long claimed that the geological column was deposited during the flood. “Scientists speculate” No, a bunch of pseudoscientific charlatans make stuff up. No, the continents did not break up in a global flood. Plate tectonics is a solid theory, if the continents would have all broken up during the flood we would not have island chains such the Hawaiian Islands which were formed as the ocean floor moved slowly over hot spots.

        “Again, even if all that happened above ground, you’d need the intensity that the sun puts out each day just to start boiling the water at sea level. I doubt natural processes could even begin to put that kind of energy out.” No, look at the math above. I clearly show that even with your lower number the ocean can easily boil with that amount of energy.

        Varves. We can tell which ones are seasonal by the pollen distribution. When they are none annual it is easy to notice because they aren’t uniform and we can see what type of weather influenced them. Even if they formed once a day, we have one that have 20 million varves. That would still make it 50,000 years old, and the firmness of the silt makes it impossible for them to have formed that fast. We observe annual varves forming today and we know what they look like. We can count varves in lakes back 20 million years.

        I don’t think you understand numbers accurately. 800 billion vertebrates means 21 per every acre of land on earth. In just a thousand kilometers length in of the arctic coastal plain contains 500,000 TONS of tusk. There is 1.16×10^13 tons of coal reserve, and amount a 100 times that in sediments. Even if there was a forrest that covered every square each of earth it could only make 1.9×10^13 tons. If you assume the Karoo formation contains only 1% of vertebrates, that would make 2100 vertebrates per acres on top of your forrest. 

        Why don’t you go publish these ideas you have in a scientific journal?

        “Footprints with ripples above and below makes sense in light of a large flood. Especially one that had rain every day.”

        /facepalm

        I’m sorry if that is what you think a flood can do. Produce layers above and below a footprint with raindrops.

        I’m convinced that you could care less about the facts.

        Let me remember you that a global flood would most likely kill ALL life after its done too. It would also kill most of the plant life (most plants can’t survive submerged in salt water), most of the fish would have died, coral (which we know takes millions of years to form btw) would have been killed, diseases would have died and most predators would have died. That actually brings an interesting point that predators at the top of the food chain require more animals than themselves to eat below them (think about one lion needed to eat multiple antelope during her lifetime), who in turn require even more animals to eat below them. There is no way two of a kind would do that. Most animals that we see today should be extinct. Studies show that populations less than 20 individuals usually die off even when extraordinary measures are taken to conserve them.

        • Anonymous

          aaron, in only 200 years we will have depleted most available oil in the Earth. You expect me to believe that was all we got from millions of years?

          Coral reefs can grow very fast. It does not take millions of years.

          Reef growth rates have been reported as high as 414 millimetres per year in the Celebes. At such a rate, the entire thickness of the Eniwetok Atoll could have been formed in less than 3,500 years.

          J. Verstelle, ‘The Growth Rate at Various Depths of Coral Reefs in the Dutch East-Indian Archipelago’, Treubia 14:117–126, 1932.

          —-
          aaron, the species off Noah’s ark are not the ones we have today.

          Wolf, cat, birds of prey. That’s about it that prefer only meat. And the species we have today
          diverged from one kind off the ark. One kind of cat, one kind of wolf.

          There are very few land mammals that eat meat and many can survive on vegetation. Meat is the preferred food of carnivores. That doesn’t mean they can’t eat and digest plant matter as well.

          It seems to me you are grasping onto anything to help yourself not believe God and the bible. Scientists and what they come up with are usually based on long ages and no God. That means most of their conclusions are probably way off base using that starting point.

          Bottom line is you can trust man or you can trust God. The evidence fits better with the biblical story of creation and the world wide flood.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

            re:
            Bottom line is you can trust man or you can trust God.  

            back to the deeply dichotomous thinking. the ultimate YEC debating point.

            the implication being that science is man’s word and the Bible is God’s word. you neglect the fact that you must interpret the Scriptures in much the same way that you accuse science of misinterpreting the evidence in the world. reading the Bible is very much a human endeavor as is doing geology or experimenting in biology. taking this supposed high ground: i trust God by direct contact with His thoughts via the Bible is just a hillock of sand. you trust your interpretation of those words written down, everything you claim about science misinterpreting the evidence and guessing about it’s meaning and building false evolutionary theory can and ought to be directed at your theory building about what Scripture says.

            reading the book of works and the book of words are surprisingly parallel human activities, thus the power of the analogy. you trust your interpretation, your vision, your community’s presentation of God, as do i. we can compare our interpretations, but neither one of us has access to some privileged this-is-God’s-very-own viewpoint.

            i trust God, the Scriptures appear before my mind with power, presence and authority. but so does science, when i read good science it puts me into contact with the mind of God as he has created this world, it tells me things about nature, about myself that i don’t know and that are important. facts are significant, but theories about how they fit together enable me to think God’s thoughts after him. a most exciting human journey that makes life worthwhile.

            yecists’ truncated distorted view of human science destroys this important natural theological understanding, sad, the world is so much more interesting than evolutionnews’ pov.

          • Anonymous

            “aaron, in only 200 years we will have depleted most available oil in the Earth. You expect me to believe that was all we got from millions of years? ” Um, yes, as most coal is found in sedimentary rock that contains stream channels, roots, and soil horizons which take a long time to form.
            Coral reefs. “Thus a reasonably good reconstruction of the history of the Eniwetok atoll has been made, by taking note of the rock and sediment types, the many kinds of marine fossils, the distinct unconformities, and the kinds of pollen and other remains of terrestrial life. All of these tell us that the reef has had a long and varied history, with numerous major interruptions in its development.” Wonderly, 1977 pg. 36.

            414 mm is in no way shape or form the average growth rate of coral, and the authors of the AiG article you pulled that from know it. That number comes from an article written in 1930 done by soundings. The other authors that AiG sites, both Roth and Chadwick, site that as an anomoly. Average growth rates were around .8 to 30mm at the most. The higher end can only be achieved by specific types of coral, and it was shown in those works that individual coral cannot possibly grow that fast. So no, the great barrier reef and Eniwetok Atoll could not have been formed in several thousand years, and every reputable scientist knows this.

            Here we have the typically creationist strategy of find a quote from a scientist somewhere, no matter how old and how much of an anomaly and how much existing evidence we have now for growth rates of coral, one quote from an imprecise measurement made 80 years ago apparently overturns all scientific evidence and consensus on the matter.

            “Wolf, cat, birds of prey. That’s about it that prefer only meat. And the species we have today
            diverged from one kind off the ark. One kind of cat, one kind of wolf.”

            Well, besides that speciation can’t occur that fast; especially since inbreeding would produce enormous problems, and besides that when Genesis uses the word kind it is most likely referring to something analogous to species (reproduce according to their kind, also naming of animals would typically be done at what we call the specie level), no, cats dogs and birds of prey are not the only obligate carnivores, some reptiles are as well such as snakes and theropod dinosaurs (e.g. T-Rex). Also you fail to mentions that many more are hypercarnivore or messocarniovore. We will also ignore how the heck one would care for all these animals on the ark, which need special diets, fresh foods, food preservation, pest control, ventilation, sanitation, exercise, and feeding and water. 

            Ultimately, it doesn’t matter as most of the habitats for these animals, especially including vegetation, would have died. Even if they didn’t need meat to eat, there would be no plants for them! Many plants can’t survive being underwater  (especially salt water) for that long (including seeds), the seeds that did survive would be buried under several feet of sentiment and therefore impossible to grow, many plants require established soil to grow; they would be dead too, plants that germinate after fire or indigestion wouldn’t grow, etc. No plants, no food, no life after flood, especially since inbreeding would cause significant problems. 

            “It seems to me you are grasping onto anything to help yourself not believe God and the bible. Scientists and what they come up with are usually based on long ages and no God. That means most of their conclusions are probably way off base using that starting point.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

            “The evidence fits better with the biblical story of creation and the world wide flood.”
            No, it fits better with my theory of unicorn farts than with taking an ancient myth literally. 

            • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

              thank you for the reasoned rebuttal to cdbren. 
              sometimes it seems a waste of time and such asymmetry.
              he writes in 5min what took me 2 hours to read and rebut.
              re:several feet of sentiment spellcheckers can’t get every error *grin* but don’t edit it. it’s cute.

            • Anonymous

              aaron, you need to look at other data. Other viewpoints. Maybe http://www.evolutionnews.com

              You are talking about things with no thought. The animals of the ark would have been more genetically diverse, so no inbreeding.

              http://www.answersingenesis.org has many articles about the ark.

              You believe evolution from molecule to man happened but don’t believe the flood happened. I wonder which of us believes in fairy tales?

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

        read this kind of speculation, go to AiG and evolutionnews and read the source material for it. then ponder the fact that these YECists are the ones telling science that evolutionary theory is “just-so” stories without any basis in reality. i really think we are watching mind control of some form for otherwise normal people to believe(&propagate) such things.

        “Dear God, i’d like to file a bug report.”
        http://xkcd.com/258/ 

        how many american bison where there?
        By the 1830s the Comanche and their allies on the southern plains were killing about 280,000 bison a year, which was near the limit of sustainability for that region. 

        Though approximately 500,000 bison exist on private ranches and in public herds, some people estimate that perhaps only 15,000 to 25,000 of these bison are pure and are not actually bison-cattle hybrids.  

        best quess numbers when columbus arrived are ~60million.
        when 60M is to 150K as 4.5B is to 10k?

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Once again, I ask you to kindly solve the world’s fuel and energy crises by producing raw petroleum in the short time that your worldview says it is possible. Your claims will be vindicated and your movement will be hailed as heroes. Why don’t you do it?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PJ6PZMYZVJL4CGQBUYBVMQSDPQ james Harrison

    Ideological beliefs are rather like the Chinese finger puzzle. It doesn’t help to pull on the guy’s elbows: the harder you (or he) pulls, the more tightly he’s trapped. The good news is, if and when folks like cdbren relax into accepting the obvious, they are already well informed about the facts they’ve been denying with so much ado. The problem isn’t low information.

  • Anonymous

    I am looking at other viewpoints. Perhaps I should take more seriously:
    http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/
    http://www.loosechange911.com/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories
    http://www.foxnews.com/

    (Ok the last one was a joke. Sort of :)

    I’ve already illustrated the numerous problems and shabby scholarship that AiG does (do you think any scientific journal would allow an article to be published that used an extreme anomaly from an 80 year old inaccurate source as a reliable dating method? Or that someone with no training in Hebrew what soever has the audacity to tell us what the Hebrew words in Genesis mean? People with no exegetical training telling us that there isn’t two creation stories in Genesis, when Jewish scholars even before Jerome recognized there were?). It doesn’t matter how genetically diverse the animals were, harmful recessive alleles are more likely to be homozygous in inbreeding pairs. There is no way current populations could come from one pair in one central location, as we can see plainly when we look at animals present ranges and biological diversity. There’s also the interesting problem of ecological interdependence, which cannot be explained by a global flood. 

    “evolution from molecule to man” How many times do you have to be told that abiogenesis is not the same as evolution? Evolution is change in a gene pool over time. Variation in the gene pool is caused by mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, recombination and gene flow. Evidence of macroevolution is overwhelming and can be seen in comparative biochemical and genetic studies, comparative developmental biology, patterns of biogeography, comparative morphology and anatomy and the fossil record. 

    Abiogenesis theory is something completely different. Scientists from my private organization that doesn’t accept you unless you believe in the unicorn fart theory believe life originally came from unicorn farts. 

    Also a myth is not a fairy tell. To call a story a myth is a great compliment, it says that it is a story that speaks to a deeper universal human reality.

    • Anonymous

      Re: “”evolution from molecule to man” How many times do you have to be told
      that abiogenesis is not the same as evolution? Evolution is change in a
      gene pool over time. Variation in the gene pool is caused by mutation,
      natural selection, genetic drift, recombination and gene flow. Evidence
      of macroevolution is overwhelming and can be seen in comparative
      biochemical and genetic studies, comparative developmental biology,
      patterns of biogeography, comparative morphology and anatomy and the
      fossil record.”

      Every evidence you listed shows proof of intelligent design.

      You don’t realize that you are believing someones interpretation of the evidence.

      I mean I read posts saying there are different interpretations of the bible or it’s up to the individual reader yet you just blindly believe one interpretation of the evidence. 

  • Anonymous

    aaaron, here is a report with growth rates up to 99 mm per year. Also they said growth rate is determined by temperature.

    http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/umrsmas/bullmar/1978/00000028/00000004/art00011

    • Anonymous

      How do you know Jesus didn’t have mental limitations? 
      Please explain to me how intelligent design explains those features above, as well as the mechanism intelligent design uses to do so. Then explain why God designed them to look as though they evolved from a common ancestor, and why God made it look like jerry-rigging.
      Do you know what alleles are?
      Yes, you are correct, elkhorn coral is a fast growing coral, my bad, but most coral grows slower. Also individual coral can grow much faster than coral reefs which means that still puts you beyond well beyond the flood, which would have wiped out all the coral reefs.
      Also, the fast growth requires very specific conditions to be contained for a long period of time, which is very unlikely. Furthermore, evidence shows that the reefs were a different points in time subariel, and then you have the whole problem that they are on a sunken volcano, which doesn’t make any sense with the flood model.

      • Anonymous

        aaron, species look similar because God used the same design plan that works. Just like vehicles or computers. They are all mostly similar.

        You are also aware that coral reefs growth can be increased with warmer ocean temperatures and carbonate content?

        ———-

        The most cited example of the power of natural selection is the so-called “Darwin’s finches” of the Galapagos Islands whose average beak size fluctuated due to changes in the finches environment. But not only were the changes in the beak sizes of these tiny birds microscopic, but the average beak size returned to normal when the food supply returned to normal and foraging was easy once again even for finches with smaller beaks. In other words, nature, as it usually does, stabilized itself.

        So natural selection in this case did not lead to any progressive and irreversible change of the finches into, say, an eagle or even something closer in its morphology like a robin. Natural selection in this case was a
        conserving force which occasioned a minor modification, thus permitting
        the finches to temporarily adapt, then reverse back to their former
        state so that they could survive intact.

        For that matter, the tiny teeter-totter changes of adaptation within a population occur endlessly in nature. Such changes can be something as
        common as getting a sun tan at the beach which is nature’s way of
        protecting a person’s skin; or adaptation happens when a cat sheds its
        hair in order to adjust to the summer heat.

        In other words, organisms will change ever so slightly in order to stay the same and, thus, survive in their particular niche or environment. Besides if an organism were to change too much, as, for example, a fish which by virtue of a mutation acquired nascent legs, the fish would quickly die because it could not survive out of water or, in its helpless state, it would be eaten by predators.

        So beyond such adaptations or adjustments, natural selection is
        incapable of any innovative, irreversible changes in an organism such as a leg changing into a wing, or the scales on a trout changing into the
        feathers on a thrush. As Fodor and Piattelli-Palmerini concisely put it: “We think of natural selection as tuning the piano, not as composing
        the melodies.”

        http://victorhanson.com/articles/scambray120411.html

  • Pf

    Cd, you never answered my question from last week.

    Give me one piece of physical evidence for anything you believe. Until then, shut up.

    You said just now that Jesus believed Genesis. How do you know he actually said that, or what he meant? You really think from the little that was written on the topic in the gospels that he believed in a literal six-day creation and would have rejected evolution had he any science education? You know that how?

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Cdbren, apparently you know as little about the Bible and history as you do about science.

    They didn’t have slaves then? Please, please, actually read the Bible before writing such nonsense.

  • Anonymous

    “Richard, Jesus did not believe the Earth was flat, that the sun revolved around the Earth, or that hell was under the earth.” So Jesus was not a 1st century Palestinian Jew? Interesting. Docetist now are we?
    “The moon is a source of light at night. It seemed like almost daylight here the last couple of nights.” Um, no, it reflects light.
    “The Earth was of recent creation.” Nope. Its 4.5 billion years old.
    Jesus did not believe in slavery. They didn’t even have slaves then.
    Hahahahahahahahahahaha! So when Jesus had slaves in his parables… The fact that around ¼ to 1/3 of the entire population of the Roman Empire was slaves. It is beyond hilarious that you think that there were no slaves.
    “Your source of life is in your blood.” Um no, not in the sense the biblical authors talk about
    “If you don’t think there are demon possessions today visit a mental ward sometime.” YES! LETS GO EXCORCIST THE CRAZIES!!!! Seriously you get more unbelievable every post you write.
    “And yes, you are rejecting God and Jesus. I am not sure where you get these notions but they are not from a clear study of scripture. I have doubts if you even read it sincerely on a daily basis.” It come from believing Jesus was a Palestinian Jew.
    “aaron, species look similar because God used the same design plan that works. Just like vehicles or computers. They are all mostly similar.” No, they are not that way.
    There are similarities that cannot rationally be attributed to design. For example, an endogenous retroviral element (ERV) is a retrovirus (a parasite) that has become part of the genome. There are several kinds of ERVs, and they can insert themselves at random locations. Humans and chimps have thousands of such ERVs in common — the same type of ERV at the same location in the genome
    You are also aware that coral reefs growth can be increased with warmer ocean temperatures and carbonate content?
    No, they cannot be increased indefinitely; coral reefs only exist in a certain temperature range.
    “So natural selection in this case did not lead to any progressive and irreversible change of the finches into, say, an eagle or even something closer in its morphology like a robin” No one said natural selection does this. Natural selection decreases variation in a gene pool. Variation increases in the gene pool by mutation, recombination, and gene flow. Also, evolution is not “progressive” as you seem to indicate.
    Evolution can occur without morphological change; and morphological change can occur without evolution.
    Speciation has been observed in nature.
    “Besides if an organism were to change too much, as, for example, a fish which by virtue of a mutation acquired nascent legs, the fish would quickly die because it could not survive out of water or, in its helpless state, it would be eaten by predators.”… “So beyond such adaptations or adjustments, natural selection is
    incapable of any innovative, irreversible changes in an organism such as a leg changing into a wing, or the scales on a trout changing into the
    feathers on a thrush.”
    Nope. Lets go with half a wing. In insects half a wing is useful for skimming rapidly across the surface of the water. In large animals it is useful for gliding. Take for example flying squirrels, scalytailed squirrels, flying phalangers, and flying lemurs. There is also the example of large webbed feet on gliding tree frogs, fins on flying fish, expanded lateral membranes supported by elongated flexible ribs on gliding lizards, expanded lateral membranes supported by elongated jointed ribs on the Kuehneosauridae from the late Triassic, lateral membrane supported by bones separate from the rest of the skeleton on an upper Permian flying reptile, penguins use wings for swimming, etc.
    We also have transitional sequences showing the evolutionary transition of fins to legs, plus genetic evidence to confirm it. Most new features are modification of previously existing features. Bird wings are modified tetrapod forelimbs, which are modified sarcopterygian pectoral fins.
    However, if you could show an entirely new feature appearing out of nowhere, that certainly be evidence for creation. Not only that, but we have seen new features evolve from old ones. Some microogranisms have evolved the ability to degrade/metabolize novel manmade compounds.
    “I have doubts if you even read [the bible] sincerely on a daily basis.”
    “They didn’t even have slaves then.”
    Clearly, as Jesus doesn’t have slaves in parables (Luke 19:11-27, Luke 12:41-48) nor is there mention about being sold into slavery to repay a debt (Matthew 18:25). Nor does Paul command slaves to obey their Master’s, or write the book of Philemon specifically about returning a runway slave (which was forbidden by Mosaic law btw)

  • Anonymous

    re: “Clearly, as Jesus doesn’t have slaves in parables (Luke
    19:11-27,
    Luke 12:41-48) nor is there mention about being sold into slavery to
    repay a debt (Matthew 18:25). Nor does Paul command slaves to obey their
    Master’s, or write the book of Philemon specifically about returning a
    runway slave (which was forbidden by Mosaic law).”

    No where in my bible does it say “slave”. It says “servant”.

    All the sited passages are parables. Please educate yourself a bit about what Jewish life was at that time and what a servant meant.
    ———-
    re: “However, if you could show an entirely new feature appearing out of nowhere, that certainly would be evidence for creation.”

    How about totally new complex species appearing out of nowhere?…The Cambrian Explosion.
    ——
    re: “Variation increases in the gene pool by mutation, recombination, and
    gene flow. Also, evolution is not “progressive” as you seem to indicate.

    None of this will create new complex information for new features not in the parent species.

    I understand all of what they theorize about evolution. It can do all kinds of magical and supernatural things. Yet if we do all have a common ancestor it sure isn’t present in the so called millions of years of fossil record. Quite the opposite.

    It’s a nice theory but absolutely no real proof that it happened.

    • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      It looks like you have yet another reason to learn more about the Bible – reading the Old Testament and not just the new – and to consider learning the Biblical languages. It would improve your chances of spotting when translators have toned down terms that would be grating for modern readers.

      • Anonymous

        James, I am wondering if you consider Jesus a servant and if you consider yourself (as a saved Christian) a servant?

        Was Moses a servant of God? Is Israel a servant?

        You know, it might be better to get a handle on what those that are quick to proclaim “slavery in the bible!” actually mean by the word. For instance, does it mean people were sold as property?

        If that is the case, it is not presented in scripture at all. The Israel peoples were slaves themselves in Egypt so it would be highly ridiculous that any would condone slavery.

        A better word for servants in the bible passages would be “bond servant”. They were paid a wage and were to be treated with respect and as equals.

        —–

        Exodus 21:16
        He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.

        • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

          Cdbren, I take it you haven’t actually read the entirety of Exodus 21. How exactly can a “servant” be bought/sold? Can you work out from what is said about female servants what their male masters were liable to use them for?

          • Anonymous

            James, I take it you know nothing about what Exodus 21 means.

            A bond servant (Hebrew) can be rescued from being dirt poor and facing death or if he committed a theft or if he was a prisoner of war by being bought by other Hebrews and then work off the buying price, or 6 years of service and be free.

            Yes, I see that some people in bible times were so poor they had to sell their children as a servant. Some became wives (it does not say they did so against their free will). If to a son then she is to be treated as a daughter. Should she have been betrothed to him or his son, and either change
            their minds, a maintenance must be provided for her suitable to her
            condition as his intended wife, or her freedom instantly granted.

            • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

              Cdbren, If you are using “servant” to mean someone who can be sold to someone else, then what is the difference between that and “slave”?

              You seem to be filtering out all unpleasantness from that chapter.

              On the subject of the raqi’a, here’s a useful video I happened across: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puXC3dkUTsU

              I also just posted my brief review of John Walton’s book Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology.

              • Anonymous

                James, I have merely scrolled through lots of commentary on the matter by others. I studied the verses myself as well.

                You never answered any of my questions or do you prefer a different translation when used in those contexts?

                • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                  “Slave” fits the context as well as other uses of the word.

                  Would you translate it to say that the Israelites were “servants” in Egypt (e.g. Deuteronomy 15:15) ? It is the same word עֶבֶד, after all. Not that you had any way of knowing that, or cared to find out before making assertions.

                  • Anonymous

                    James, I am well aware of the Hebrew word.

                    Yes, I would say servant fits the Israelites in Egypt as they were fed, housed and basically protected but not the same as our idea of a slave.

                    I think that you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. The “slaves” as you call them in those times were basically voluntary. Most times it was of great benefit to the person.

                    I think you miss other verses from the same book that speak against slavery.

                    “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death.” Exodus 21:16

                    “If a man is caught kidnapping one of his brother Israelites and
                    treats him as a slave or sells him, the kidnapper must die. You must
                    purge the evil from among you.” Deuteronomy 24:7

                    15th and 16th verses of Deuteronomy 23:

                    “If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him.”

                    While the Old Testament clearly lists guidelines regarding slavery, it’s
                    clear that the type of slavery involved was overwhelmingly voluntary.
                    Most relationships were either initiated by the slave or as an
                    arrangement by the family of the slave as an economic and social
                    benefit. Mistreatment of a slave was forbidden, and slaves were afforded
                    most of the same freedoms and responsibilities as free citizens. The
                    charge that the Bible condones slavery, as the modern western world
                    understands it, is entirely without merit.

                    • Anonymous

                      Where do you get this crap???!

                      Did you read my post on slavery in Jesus’ time?

                      The amazing ability of you to lie in front of people who blatantly know you are lying is quite incredible.

                      Heres my post again:

                      Slavery in the bible:

                      In the Old testament slavery was condoned both for debt and military conquest. Hebrew slaves were required to be freed after 6 years, but no such provision existed for women or foreigners who were slaves for life. The Old Testament shows slaves as property of their masters, which is why it regulated the beating of them among other things.

                      From “Introducing the New Testament” by Mark Allen Powell, on the note about slavery in the Roman World:

                      “The institution of slavery was deeply ingrained in Roman society. Roman conquests often led to the enslavement of resident populations, and slave hunters captured victims in provinces not yet overtaken by Rome. Individuals could be sentenced to slavery as punishment for various offenses, and entire families were sold into slavery when someone defaulted on a debt. Since children born to slaves were automatically slaves themselves, the passage of generations guaranteed growth of a large slave population By the time of Paul, between one-forth and one third of all people in the empire were slaves…Slavery was not always permanent. In some cases, slaves were paid a wage and allowed to purchase their freedom after a period of time; in other cases, slaves were automatically freed when they reached the age of thirty. Nevertheless, slaves had few legal rights. They could be beaten at the discretion of their master, they could not legally marry, and any children they produced were the property of their master (cf Matt 18:25, 34; 24:48-51; 25:30). They had virtually no autonomy-no ability to make decisions regarding their own lives or destinies-and in a world that valued honor above all else, they occupied the bottom tier of the social pyramid. A slave was a person with no honor- a person who literally lived in disgrace.

                      I suggest you look up δοῦλος as Richard suggested. 

                      From John J Collins “Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, page 130-131:

                      “The most common cause of enslavement in the ancient world was debt:people who could not pay their debts were FORCED to sell their children, or themselves, into slavery. Prisoners taken in battle were also often sold into slavery.” Emphasis mine. Also: “Moreover, if the master gives the slave a wife, she and her children remain the master’s property,  and the slave may decline his liberty because of his family ties.” 

                    • Anonymous

                      aaron, what does Roman slavery have to do with the bible?

                      Looks like you like to believe any human writer that shares your ideas but when it comes to biblical writers, led by the holy spirit to write….well, you chuck them out the window. That sounds rather convenient and hypocritical at the same time.

                    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

                      re:
                      I think that you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.  

                      military casualties from the American Civil War approach 1M men.
                      about 20 M=number of africans removed from africa in the atlantic slave trade.
                      300 years of Christians justifying it with Scripture.
                      no, that is a mountain of bodies.

                      re:The charge that the Bible condones slavery, as the modern western world understands it, is entirely without merit. 

                      “the charge”(as you term it) is that people justified it with Scripture, the history of which is accessible to anyone reading documents from 1820-1870 like dabney’s. the conclusion that their arguments are without merit is another different discussion. the fact that modern YECists do not know the Biblical arguments, or even that they were made, shows how complete the change in Biblical interpretation was. anyone glancing at the 1820-1850′s will see every american denomination split over the issue, with the liberals going with the northern churches and the conservatives with the southern overriding even the great sectional divisions themselves.

                      for YECists are the intellectual and hermeneutical descendants of the defenders of slavery, not the abolitionists. the roots of American, like British abolitionism was in the Quaker communities and was picked up by the liberal part of the church. the argument for abolition was an argument from the text as a whole, from the bible as a system of thinking. while the southern defense was to the text, specific verses and direct commandments of God. the abolitionists bore the same relationship to the defenders of slavery as theistic evolutionists bear to YECs, liberal to conservative, system to literal, sentence to word, on how they use Scripture, interpret it and generally accept it as the Word of God. 

                      a glance at a map of the US shaded by population of YEC believers is a map of the distribution and justification of slavery, it is the same community, it is the same conservative Biblical hermeneutic in action. A simple listing of states where laws are passed demanding equal time for creationism are those same states + border states like tenn, kentucky that formed the CSA. the common thread is the hermeneutic of the churches that make up the various interpretive communities involved. the hermeneutic is conservative, clear, plain speaking, man in the street, literal; those same features that distinguish YEC from theistic evolutionist.

                      see The Civil War as a theological crisis By Mark A. Noll
                      readable in part on google books

                      theology does change, its only that the successors like the YEC continue to trump their unchanging stance, since they don’t know their own history

            • http://www.rethinkingao.com Mike Beidler

              20″When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money. 
               
              Exodus 21:20-21 (ESV)  Certainly sounds like fun to be a slave in Israel’s early days!  Sign me up!

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

          re:
          You know, it might be better to get a handle on what those that are quick to proclaim “slavery in the bible!” actually mean by the word. For instance, does it mean people were sold as property? 

          http://www.portagepub.com/dl/causouth/dabney.pdf? 

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

      re:
      No where in my bible does it say “slave”. It says “servant”. All the sited passages are parables. Please educate yourself a bit about what Jewish life was at that time and what a servant meant. 

      re:
      and to consider learning the Biblical languages. It would improve your chances of spotting when translators have toned down terms that would be grating for modern readers. 

      this is our host’s area of expertise. a reason why i watch and read knowledgeable people’s blogs and why i defend my time spent doing so to friends at church. for how am i going to learn to challenge the places i am wrong or weak in my understanding unless i am exposed to in-depth scholarship and specialized knowledge?

      we live in bubbles, knowledge silos, often the areas we really need help in are the places these silos are the thickest. cdbren is just a more obvious example, look at these two critical words he wrote-= my bible =-

      his bible, his interpretation of a text, his knowledge silo, his interpretive community’s gift of a system of how to read and understand that text. it makes the text intelligibly, for without a community we are unable even to begin to read it. but it also binds and surrounds us with errors and major blind spots. 

      re:
      Please educate yourself 

      that is why i’m here. that is why i listen to experts like J.McG and not K.Ham. that is why i’ve answered your comments here.

      “But as if their work turning the Bible and the Christian faith into a laughing stock were not enough, they also close some Christians’ ears to the voice of other Christians who actually do know something about the Bible or about the sciences. Thus they sow division in the body of Christ.”

      who we listen to matters. authority based on expertise does matter.

      word for the day–δοῦλος 

      • Anonymous

        Richard, you are assuming that James “knows something” simply because he is waving a degree in the air. I think you would fare much better studying on your own.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

          re:
          Richard, you are assuming that James “knows something” simply because he is waving a degree in the air. I think you would fare much better studying on your own.  

          Craig, it’s not the act of diploma waving i admire, it’s the hours of competent, intellectually difficult, serious study that he offers for our edification(for free, his students have to pay for it *grin*). my time is limited, my abilities are even more limited(i’ve noticed), by learning from those who are both smarter and more educated than am i, i leverage my time and efforts and get far further along than anything i can imagine doing on my own. 

          why would i do any better studying the Bible by myself on my own than i would start building my house by planting trees for the lumber or by working on my car by first smelting the iron ore? i admire the division of labor, the ability to specialize, the advantages that a group gets with synergy and co-operation.

          why should i even consider abandoning these great things to work by myself when my lifetime tells me i often err and don’t even know it until someone else sees it?

          • Anonymous

            I’ll give you a for instance. My father, my brothers and myself have learned to repair our own cars. All of us know more than someone coming out of mechanic school that works in a garage.

            My brother took apart motorcycle engines. Repaired them, etc. When he went to training, only so he could be “certified” and open his own repair shop, he and his friend got straight A’s. They were the first done on each assignment.

            You do not need to be educated to be smart or know something.

            Plus the fact that you constantly bemoan many other people that each seem to have a different interpretation, yet you choose to go by James’ interpretations.

            You are extremely inconsistent in your reasoning.

            • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

              re:

              You do not need to be educated to be smart or know something. 
              -although it helps to be both educated and smart and driven and good at what you do.
              i’m reading an excellent essay on this now. http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/02/ff_fasterthanwind/all/1# re:
              Plus the fact that you constantly bemoan many other people that each seem to have a different interpretation, yet you choose to go by James’ interpretations. 

              –i’m not sure bemoan is the right word, observe would be a better one. i’m not even sure of most of J.McG’s interpretations let alone agree with them, but when i do find out, i’ll give them greater weight than i do K.Ham’s. i am however surprised at how little YECists seem to know about the wide divergence of opinions there have been on verses they describe as clear and simple and allowing of only one true interpretation, theirs.re:You are extremely inconsistent in your reasoning.

              —we agree, again. although i’m not sure your examples demonstrate it.

              on another topic, isn’t the burping unicorn the consort of the flying spaghetti monster? at least during the months without an “r’ in the name.

              • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

                it is a curious thing that not only has the information been lost in the conservative christian community that it once believed slavery a cornerstone of christian society, that it once believed that the bible taught a flat geocentric world, but those same verses used in the past to justify those things have been so re-interpreted that modern YECists can’t even see why anyone would/could use those verses to support those old ideas.

                it’s a bit like 1984 and rewriting history. YECists believe the old south was wrong on it’s stand on slavery. but since the memory of how people argued from Scripture has been completely lost, those verses have been rewritten in people’s minds from slave to servant so now you have their descendants (literally in my case, as i have found my ancestors slave schedules and genetic evidence of african american cousins while doing genealogy) completely unaware of those arguments and now arguing that the opposite viewpoint is the clear unambiguous teaching of Scripture as has always been the case since Jesus first taught those doctrines.

                i find this a shameful disregarding of what people actually taught. but since so few people are actually going to read dabney or look at the issues, modern YECists will continue to teach that they believe exactly, no more no less, than Jesus did, and they will get away with this lie. 

                they will read the exact opposite into the crucial verses and point to them and proclaim-see no slavery they are voluntary debt bond servants! or see-Jesus believed the world was round and revolved around the sun and the moon was a mirror! look here, Jesus knew it was germs he was casting out not demons! this as it has been proclaimed from Jesus’ day in the exact same way, we hold to the bible exactly as it always has been taught with no changes. pushing all those inconvenient historical facts down the black memory hole and carefully re writing the interpretation of those verses so no one can even imagine them teaching anything else but what is currently taught. 

                • Ian

                  Superb comment, Richard. Much appreciated. 

                  Though nowhere near as clearly written, I wrote a piece from a British point of view on the same topic last month: http://irrco.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/adopting-the-quakers/

  • Anonymous

    Richard, I am not sure where you wanted me to look on that link but I thought I found the right one. It actually disproves your claims.

    There can be few books which have attracted more derision, mixed
    with wonder, than the Christian Topography of Cosmas
    Indicopleustes.  It advances the idea that the world is flat, and that the
    heavens form the shape of a box with a curved lid.  The author cites
    passages of scripture which he distorts wildly in order to support his thesis,
    and attempts to argue down the idea of a spherical earth by stigmatizing it as
    ‘pagan.’  The approach to scripture is discreditable, and the conclusion
    made simply wrong.

    The book is often cited as evidence that Christianity introduced
    the idea of the flat-earth into the world, and brought in the age of
    ignorance.  This is hardly fair, since Cosmas does not represent a
    mainstream of any kind, personally or spiritually.  The latter pages of his
    work are devoted to rebutting the criticism of his fellow-monks, that what he
    was saying was wrong.

    As far as we can judge from the surviving literature, Christians
    and pagans did not as such hold different views about the shape of the
    world.  Some of the philosophers had supposed a spherical earth, and even
    calculated its size, and some Christians followed them, particularly if they
    were educated men.  Other philosphers had derided the idea, and some
    Christians did likewise, such as Lactantius and Cosmas.  Naturally
    Christian writers of this school turned to scripture to illustrate their theme,
    but their methods of exegesis attracted severe criticism from other Christian
    authors such as Photius.  In short, it was a subject on which there was no
    certain knowledge in the ancient world.  In the absence of the Victorian
    culture of science which we enjoy today, there was also no means for a
    proto-scientist to publish his discovery in such a way that it would be clear to
    all that he was not simply a crank idly speculating.  It seems unreasonable
    to condemn Cosmas for reflecting the era in which he lived, when our incredulity
    reflects only the better-informed era in which we were wise enough to be born.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

      re:
      Richard, I am not sure where you wanted me to look on that link but I thought I found the right one. It actually disproves your claims.  

      my point is how people defend their interpretation of Scripture. 
      my point is that this man was fully convinced that in order to do justice to his faith, in order to demonstrate his commitment to God and to the Bible, he had to defend a flat earth. it is how he uses Scripture that is important. for he uses it in much the same way that YECists use it today. 

      since most people here are not steeped in Ptolemaic cosmology we can look less passionately, more objectively at his arguments. we can see the shape of how he uses Scripture, we can see how he defends elements of an ancient worldview as essential to his biblical worldview.  we can see his confusion of text-worldview-message better than he did because we do not believe that a Christian world view must contain a cosmological element of flat earth.

      another, much closer example is Robert Dabney, who after Calvin is my personal favorite theologian, and his book _defense of virginia_. he defends slavery as an essential element of a Christian and Biblical worldview. he does so in a very analogous way to how K.Ham AiG evolutionnews and cdbren defend YECism. 

      these are, imho, good examples of how the world influences and modifies Biblical interpretation. from studying them we can see how past believers have stood their ground on the wrong elements of the Bible, the same way YECists today defend a young earth. we can see why and how the wider church has modified it’s teachings, it’s interpretation and we can use this information to help YECist brethren see that they don’t have to throw away their faith when they understand ET rightly. Dabney died believing slavery an inescapable, absolutely essential element of Christian society. yet i attend a church which is a direct descendant of his, and we’ve sung “Battle hymn of the Republic” in sunday morning worship and God didn’t strike us dead for it. interpretations do change, and i look forward to the day when YECism is as dead as the justification of slavery is.

  • Anonymous

    Slavery in the bible:

    In the Old testament slavery was condoned both for debt and military conquest. Hebrew slaves were required to be freed after 6 years, but no such provision existed for women or foreigners who were slaves for life. The Old Testament shows slaves as property of their masters, which is why it regulated the beating of them among other things.

    From “Introducing the New Testament” by Mark Allen Powell, on the note about slavery in the Roman World:

    “The institution of slavery was deeply ingrained in Roman society. Roman conquests often led to the enslavement of resident populations, and slave hunters captured victims in provinces not yet overtaken by Rome. Individuals could be sentenced to slavery as punishment for various offenses, and entire families were sold into slavery when someone defaulted on a debt. Since children born to slaves were automatically slaves themselves, the passage of generations guaranteed growth of a large slave population By the time of Paul, between one-forth and one third of all people in the empire were slaves…Slavery was not always permanent. In some cases, slaves were paid a wage and allowed to purchase their freedom after a period of time; in other cases, slaves were automatically freed when they reached the age of thirty. Nevertheless, slaves had few legal rights. They could be beaten at the discretion of their master, they could not legally marry, and any children they produced were the property of their master (cf Matt 18:25, 34; 24:48-51; 25:30). They had virtually no autonomy-no ability to make decisions regarding their own lives or destinies-and in a world that valued honor above all else, they occupied the bottom tier of the social pyramid. A slave was a person with no honor- a person who literally lived in disgrace.

    I suggest you look up δοῦλος as Richard suggested. 

    “How about totally new complex species appearing out of nowhere?…The Cambrian Explosion. ” This has been debunked before in our discussion. The Cambrian period is not where we first find complex life. We have fond multicellular life from before then, and well as diverse fossils. There is plenty of evidence of complex life before the Cambrian period. Furthermore, there are transitional fossils with the Cambrian such as lobopods, which are a transitional form between arthropods and worms. Furthermore, no all types of plants and animals appear in the Cambrian explosion. Organisms such as sponges appeared before. Organisms that did appear in the Cambrian explosion, such as fish, were unlike what we have today. Major radiations of life have occurred before, such as during the ordovician. Radiation is actually a typically pattern after a mass extiction. In fact, after the extinction of the dinosaurs mammals radiated out, paving the way for you and me. Now there is a lot of possible contributing factors to the Cambrian explosion that is well documented, such as the evolution of harder parts easier to fossilize, climate change, hox gene evolution, atmospheric composition, etc. I personally reject all that for favor of my interpretation, which is… you guessed it… unicorn burps!

    “None of this will create new complex information for new features not in the parent species. ”

    Did you read my last post when I specifically gave the example of micro organisms developing the NEW ability to metabolism man-made compounds?
    You might find this article interesting: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030508075843.htm

    We have examples of increased genetic variety in a population, increased genetic material, new genetic material, and new genetically regulated abilities.

    We also know that duplication is an excellent mechanism for adding new information.

    Another good article on this here http://www.pnas.org/content/97/9/4463.full
    and a cool simulation here http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    “Voluntary slavery.” Good one. Very amusing indeed.

    • Anonymous

      James, it’s bond servant…..”voluntary indentured servant”, as far as the biblical record. It isn’t amusing. It’s history.

  • Anonymous

    This is where cdbren got his info:  http://www.examiner.com/christian-apologetics-in-denver/does-the-old-testament-condone-slavery

  • Anonymous

    I did source criticism on his post :-D

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

      re:
      I did source criticism on his post :-D 

      thanks i forgot for a moment that the discussion is actually with a cut and paste from everywhere rather than someone who reads and learns by rewriting in his original words. but that’s ok. just a bit asymmetrical.

      btw:
      the issue of man-stealing was the only conservative argument against slavery, there were several church trials over these things, all accessible on line. it’s nice that the net makes obscure things so very available.

      the most interesting one i have studied is by George Bourne
      http://www.archive.org/details/manstealingslave00bour

      i got into the literature while studying Presbyterian history
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bourne#Censorship_by_the_Presbyterian_Church 

      the big issue is clear. YECists are the hermeneutic successors of R.Dabney, but they lost his interpretations, all the while claiming to believe exactly the same as Jesus did, even though Jesus’ viewpoint was over thrown by “those consummate theologians, the reverend doctors Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman, to decide what in fact the Bible actually meant.” so completely that modern day YECists have no memory of those changes….

      i like Noll’s lines:
      On the eve of the Civil War, interpretations of the Bible that made the most sense to the broadest public were those that incorporated the defining experiences of America into the hermeneutics used for interpreting what the infallible text actually meant. In this effort, those who, like James Henley Thornwell, defended the legitimacy of slavery in the Bible had the easiest task. The procedure, which by 1860 had been repeated countless times, was uncomplicated. First, open the scriptures and read — at, say, Leviticus 25:45, or, even better, at 1 Corinthians 7:20-21. Second, decide for yourself what these passages mean. Don’t wait for a bishop or a king or a president or a meddling Yankee to tell you what the passage means, but decide for yourself. Third, if anyone tries to convince you that you are not interpreting such passages in the commonsensical, ordinary meaning of the words, look hard at what such a one believes with respect to other biblical doctrines. If you find in what he or she says about such doctrines the least hint of unorthodoxy, as inevitably you will, then you may rest assured that you are being asked to give up not only the plain meaning of scripture, but also the entire trust in the Bible that made the country into such a great Christian civilization.With debate over the Bible and slavery at such a pass, and especially with the success of the proslavery biblical argument manifestly (if also uncomfortably) convincing to most southerners and many in the North, difficulties abounded. The country had a problem because its most trusted religious authority, the Bible, was sounding an uncertain note. The evangelical Protestant churches had a problem because the mere fact of trusting implicitly in the Bible was not solving disagreements about what the Bible taught concerning slavery. The country and the churches were both in trouble because the remedy that finally solved the question of how to interpret the Bible was recourse to arms. The supreme crisis over the Bible was that there existed no apparent biblical resolution to the crisis. It was left to those consummate theologians, the reverend doctors Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman, to decide what in fact the Bible actually meant.
      http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3403 

      see
      http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/45597.html 
      http://books.google.com/books?id=uMHv6vUW5y4C&pg=PA50

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

        re:
        Third, if anyone tries to convince you that you are not interpreting such passages in the commonsensical, ordinary meaning of the words, look hard at what such a one believes with respect to other biblical doctrines. If you find in what he or she says about such doctrines the least hint of unorthodoxy, as inevitably you will, then you may rest assured that you are being asked to give up not only the plain meaning of scripture, but also the entire trust in the Bible that made the country into such a great Christian civilization. 

        one of the nice things about these discussions is how much you can really learn by paying attention. even to what you yourself write!

        i’ve read the above line dozens of times in my studies but only the recent exchanges here concerning how YECism is a linear descendant from Ellen G White’s visions of the Noahic food did i make this connection with American exceptionalism so much in the news now with the Republicans campaigning. for SDA like their 1st cousins LDS are primarily American religious movements born out of the experiences of early 19thC frontier. nice, to see hermeneutics connect directly with history into the current YECist debate. although least hint of orthodoxy here is directed at first Quakers then liberals of all flavors from Boston Unitarians to the Beechers(father and brothers to 
        Harriet Beecher Stowe)

  • Anonymous

    Richard, really.

    There are more slaves today than in all of history. They are mainly in Sudan. I really don’t think the bible had much of anything to do with slavery. Every ancient civilization had slavery.

    The only conclusion one can draw is that people, not bible believing Christians, used the Bible to justify their beliefs. Much as some of you are doing to justify a belief in molecules to man evolution and long ages.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

      re:
      The only conclusion one can draw is that people, not bible believing Christians, used the Bible to justify their beliefs. 

      you didn’t even try to read R.Dabney. obviously. no one can read him without being impressed at his piety and personal sacrifice for his Christian faith.

      fyi, the most bible believing Christians who think like you do and read the Bible with the same hermeneutic as you do, supported slavery in the 19thC based on those very same shared principles. that is the big point, their hermeneutical principles defended slavery in exactly the same way you defend YECism today. the natural, clear, literal man-in-the-pew reading that is claimed trace their roots directly back to the way Jesus himself believed. abolitionists on the other hand share the common principles among theistic evolutionists; system, reasonable deduction, more symbolic than literal etc.

      but i suppose your comment could reflect the continuing idea that: no True Christian could possibly believe X is in the Bible. despite continuing evidence from history that lots of Christians taught X from their Bibles using exactly the same arguments as you justify a young recent creation.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

      re:
      There are more slaves today than in all of history. They are mainly in Sudan.  

      this persona of cdbren has to be a group of teenaged girls sitting at a laptop making things up and giggling that people are actually taking them seriously and timing how many days we foolishly continue to interact with them. sort of an updated version of random phones calls and asking if your refrigerator is still running. no one can reach adulthood anywhere in the world and say the things we’ve seen from the keyboard/mind of cdbren.

      not even the most dedicated troll could think things like this up. it’s got to be 13-14 year old kids. 

      • Anonymous

        Which might bring into question the seriousness and time we should put into responding. Though I have been quite entertained, and in all honesty it is the type of stuff adult creationists say.

        • Anonymous

          Yes, I meant at any time in history. There are 12 to 27 million slaves worldwide today.

          In the Sudan it is an epidemic. (widespread) As reported by the Middle East Quarterly, a peer reviewed magazine.

          I agree that some Christians used the bible (wrongly) to advocate slavery and some, at the same time, used that same bible (rightly) to try to abolish slavery.

          Also, note that in the America’s in 1619 Virginia African slaves were indentured servants. Offered freedom after they turned 25. The same in Mass. in 1620. Opposition to slavery in the United States predates the nation’s independence. The Quakers in America always protested against slavery. Of course we all know where this headed….

          Some Baptists and Methodist preachers kind of ignored it it and instead used it to spread the gospel to the slaves.
          ———
          “The Bible uses the Hebrew term ebed to refer to slavery; however, ebed has a much wider meaning than the English term slavery, and in several circumstances it is more accurately translated into English as servant or hired worker.”

          “It was common in OT times for a person to voluntarily sell oneself into slavery for a fixed period of time either to pay off debts or to get food and shelter.”

          “Children could also be sold into debt bondage, which was sometimes ordered by a court of law.”

          You can check all references here:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery

          Plus the fact that Richard may be confusing Christianity with Catholicism (which later changed their views on slavery). aaron is confusing Roman society with Jewish society.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Voluntary indentured servitude? Have you ever surveyed indentured servants to determine how many of them really wanted to be indentured servants?

    Are you familiar with the expression “clutching at straws”?

  • Anonymous

    “aaron, what does Roman slavery have to do with the bible?”
    Oh my. This is pathetic.

    Have you looked up δοῦλος yet? 

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Some Christians “used the Bible wrongly” to justify slavery? But they used the same methods and approach that young-earth creationists use! Presumably one day conservative Christians will all look back and agree with hindsight that Christians in the past used the Bible wrongly to justify young-earth creationism – while using the Bible in the same way in relation to some other topic.

    • Anonymous

      I disagree James although I can see where you would make that connection. They are totally different issues.

      For instance, if you took the days out of Genesis, you still have the genealogy from Adam to Jesus that clearly shows Adam, land animals and creeping things (reptiles) were created around 10,000 years ago. You still have Jesus verifying that Moses’ writings are true history.

      I don’t think it is an issue of just misinterpreting one word or one aspect of history as in the slave issue. The reason is because other scripture makes all men equal and discourages actual slavery.

      While with creation, many other scriptures make it clear that God did create just as he stated.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

        re:
        I don’t think it is an issue of just misinterpreting one word or one aspect of history as in the slave issue. The reason is because other scripture makes all men equal and discourages actual slavery.  

        you didn’t read any of Dabney. a shame. he is an extraordinary thinker. you have no idea of how Christians defended slavery and why their defense is so analogous to how YECists defend a young earth. your lack of knowledge about history is very similar to your ignorance of science. Dabney like all antebellum Southerners defended a very hierarchical view of society, claiming it was the only Christian model for society, he called people like you Jacobins, but you won’t understand that reference either, without googling it, and if past experience is any clue, you will misread the info you find there. i have to keep reminding myself-it’s for the lurkers.

        re:
        Again, with slavery, Christians did appose it in the distant past. Not just “today we understand it better”. They understood it just as well then. 

        read Dabney’s Defense, then we can talk. until you learn something about how Christians thought and defended slavery from Scripture you have no idea about what you are talking about.

        • Anonymous

          Richard, in which way do you think the genealogy in Genesis from Adam to Noah is incorrect and why do you think Jesus lied about it? Or if you think Genesis as well as the NT stories are not God’s words, that would be a another valid explanation.

          I am trying to google R. Dabney or Dabney’s Defense and am having problems finding the right link.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams
          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

            re:
            in which way do you think the genealogy in Genesis from Adam to Noah is incorrect 

            what do genealogies mean in the context of the ANE?
            why are genealogies such a prominent element in Scripture?

            what does genealogical research mean to us? how can we understand Biblical genealogies without having our modern notions of correctness over ride the original readers concerns?

            what do numbers mean to the writers/readers of Genesis? are the ages of the gen chronologies accurate in our modern terms? should they be?

            you presuppose the answers to these and other similar questions when you ask “are they incorrect?” Scripture is written for us but it is not written to us. it is their concerns that most dominate our discussion of Genesis’ genealogies not our own.  

            the bottom line:
            in a tribal society, whose communication is primarily verbal not written, who you are in society relies on genealogies in a way that we do not understand without significant education and analysis. to push our ideas of correct genealogical research into the lists of names in Genesis does them great disservice. (interestingly the same parallel thing happened in islam in the hadiths)

            my personal idea:
            they are primarily modified sumerian king’s lists. 
            the numbers have semi-magical significance that has been lost.
            they bear no historical significance beyond dimly remembered names passed down verbally in several cultures-egyptian and sumerian.

            • Anonymous

              You could have just spared me the long explanation and just said you don’t take God’s words or Jesus’ words as truth or as inspired.

              I kind of wonder what book you take to church with you or what they preach from there.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Of course you see them as totaly different issues! And one day in the future there will be people who see the young earth and slavery as comparable issues but something else as totally different. History repeats itself, but it is still depressing when those doing the repeating cannot see it.

  • Anonymous

    Well, maybe in an attempt to change the subject, anyone ever hear of the opisthotonic death posture?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_pose

    • Gary

      I’ll bite. Since you like wikipedia, under fossils, “Fossilization is an exceptionally rare occurrence, because most components of formerly living things tend to decompose relatively quickly following death. In order for an organism to be fossilized, the remains normally need to be covered by sediment as soon as possible. However there are exceptions to this, such as if an organism becomes frozen, desiccated, or comes to rest in an anoxic (oxygen-free) environment. So logic rules:
      When animal die, most simply rot, or are eaten. For those rare ones that end up fossilized intact, most are covered in sediment, which usually means a water source associated with it. Thus, if your wiki is valid, many fossils get their neck bent back because water was present. Although, I must admit, I am prejudiced against any research done at BYU…..although most PhD’s there probably do not mix religion with science. But I am still sceptical of the organization’s overall management agenda. BTY, I don’t consider a three month test with 7 plucked chickens a good statistical sample for the entire earth’s fossil record. BYU needs a government grant to aquire many more chickens. So your point is?

      • Gary

        BTW, you guys need to start a new post. Sorting through 300 comments is a drag.

        • Gary

          Maybe something like, “Ultimate Faceoff, McGrath versus cdbren”, part 1, part 2, etc, with comments restricted to 100 each.

      • Anonymous

        In light of the evidence, the dinosaurs being wiped out and rapidly buried was the result of what?

        • Gary

          I was simply asking what your point was about your referenced-wiki link, about “opisthotonic death posture”…considering the only evidence presented was 7 chickens laid out by BYU….I’d be embarrassed to present a conclusion based upon that. That’s all. Sounds more like a junior highschool science project a 12 year old would participate in. As a matter of fact, I’m suprised a BYU department would publish such an embarrassment without more data.

  • Anonymous

    Or maybe news that the embryo’s body plan is developed independent of DNA?

    Embryonic electric fields

    Experiments in single-celled organisms
    indicate that membrane patterns are determined by pre-existing
    membranes, not by the DNA. So although the molecular components of
    individual sodium-potassium channels may be encoded in DNA sequences,
    the three-dimensional arrangement of those channels — which determines
    the form of the endogenous electric field — constitutes an independent
    source of information in the developing embryo.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Cdbren, let us first address one of your assumptions. What evidence leads you to believe that the dinosaurs of which we have fossils all or mostly died in a mass extinction event? Would it not be more appropriate to ask about each individual fossil what the evidence is for its date, and how the organism died, and what led to its burial in a medium conducive to fossilization?

    • Anonymous

      James, I am referring to the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event. (As if you didn’t know).

      Evidence shows at that time there was higher carbon dioxide levels, higher oxygen levels, more even heat, no ice at the poles and ocean levels were 300 to 800 feet higher than today.

      The fact that only mammals survived, that they were of small sizes, that they suffered losses and diversification stalled at the boundary. All consistent with what I have been saying.

      • Ian

        Fascinating. You can reconcile the KT boundary with a young earth? It is surprising that you think that the evidence for the Cretaceous ecosystem is valid. You do seem to have a most unusual combination of beliefs: at some points thoroughly YEC, at other points you’re arguing for the KT event and faster rates of evolution than biologists claim is possible.

        “The fact that only mammals survived”

        I don’t think anybody claims that only mammals survived. Certainly it isn’t part of the scientific consensus. You might be referring to the fact that large dinosaurs didn’t survive. But plenty of other things did.

        • Anonymous

          Ian, not faster evolution rates. Natural selection rates. Which are indeed fast. Darwin’s Finches for example. Or our own breeding of dog kinds.

          If it didn’t work fast the species would not survive climate/environmental changes.

          It is interesting that you bring up the mammals. They say some avian type dinosaurs (birds with teeth and claws I would guess) did survive past the KT boundary but not for very long.

          There was also said to be “wholesale destruction of plants”.

          I know some have argued on here about those very things in regards to a world wide flood not being possible. Yet the exact same situation is explained by scientists as happening at the KT boundary yet I see no similar protests of the lack of plants or animals there.

          It also says that “Polyploidy appears to have enhanced the ability of flowering plants to survive the extinction, probably because the additional copies of the genome such plants possessed allowed them to more readily adapt to the rapidly changing environmental conditions which followed the impact.”

          “Due to the wholesale destruction of plants at the K–T boundary there was a proliferation of saprotrophic organisms such as fungi that do not require photosynthesis and use nutrients from decaying vegetation. The dominance of fungal species lasted only a few years while the atmosphere cleared and there was plenty of organic matter to feed on.”

          “Mammals and birds that survived the extinction fed on insects, worms,
          and snails, which in turn fed on dead plant and animal matter.
          Scientists hypothesize that these organisms survived the collapse of
          plant-based food chains because they fed on detritus (non-living organic material).”

          I could use the same scientific statement to show how plants came back after the flood and how many species survived off the ark until things returned to normal.

          • Ian

            I’m not interested in debating you, cdbren. Because you simply aren’t using words in a way I recognize. We have no way to discuss the difference between ‘fast evolution rates’ and ‘fast natural selection rates’, because we don’t share even the basic biological understanding of what they might be. There is literally no point. It cannot lead anywhere. There is no point discussing calculus with you, if you can’t add up. I figure the others on this thread have that about figured too now.

            I’m more interesting in trying to figure out where you’re coming from. Are you someone who stumbles into some of these odd positions because you don’t realise or can’t think through that they are side effects of the claims you’re making? Or are you someone who really does hold them based on some religious conviction: because you have your own version of creationism? I don’t know. I hope the latter, because that would be cool. I suspect the former, unfortunately.

            I called Poe on you *way* back, but I was wrong. I’m pretty sure you’re not a Poe, but I am having trouble figuring out quite where you are coming from. That’s interesting to me. Your hypotheses on the history of the earth aren’t interesting, because I literally have no idea what you actually mean.

            For those who don’t know what a Poe is, it is someone who tries to intentionally ridicule Christians or Christianity by posing as someone with outrageously ignorant or offensive views.

            • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

              http://www.patheos.com/blogs/philosophicalfragments/2011/12/12/moving-right-is-sometimes-wrong/quote:
              I have to agree with biblical scholar Peter Enns, for instance, that Young Earth Creationism, especially when it argues that a Christian cannot accept evolution, is both “wrong and harmful.”  

              and

              quote:
              We are called to conserve the fundamental truths and values that God communicated to us through Jesus Christ, but always also to reassess how we understand and apply those truths and values in the light of the best knowledge available to us.  That’s why we understand, today, that it is more Christian to oppose slavery than to support it. 

              and his conclusion

              quote:
              I hate to say this, but I sincerely believe that Ken Ham does just as much damage as Shelby Spong.  Neither one is harmless; both need to be corrected.  One leads people away from the faith by repulsion.  The other leads them away from the faith by attraction.  But the outcome is the same. 

              he is thinking about a link
              http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2011/12/01/moving-right-is-never-wrong/ 

              thanks to Ken Ham for posting the link to his FB page

              • Anonymous

                Richard, I don’t think you have to be a Christian to question evolution from molecules to man or common descent.

                Again, with slavery, Christians did appose it in the distant past. Not just “today we understand it better”. They understood it just as well then.

                Ken Ham is not leading people away, naturalist ideas about the world are.

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

                  re:
                   in the distant past. 

                  darwin’s _origins_ is contemporaneous with the American Civil War.
                  didn’t you argue awhile back concerning a distinction between recent and distant past? in particular distant past was inaccessible to “operational” science (your term, not mine), only accessible to “guess” from “origins/historical science”. perhaps this is why you have such a distorted view of things, 1860 is not distant past.

              • Ian

                Was this intended to reply to me? Not sure I follow.

                But if you want to start claiming that you know that both Ken Ham and Spong are wrong (but presumably your faith position is right, or at least doesn’t need correction in the same way). You should probably be aware that I am not a Christian, nor a theist of any kind. And so it is clearly I that is right, and if you disagree you need as much correction as anyone else.

                (hoping some note of facetiousness comes across there….)

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

                  i’m sorry, it was my error in which message i replied to. i didn’t intend to confuse the your posting flow. oops.

            • Anonymous

              Ian, Not sure to what specific topic you are referring to as there are many posts here that go off in many directions.

              On natural selection. You say it can’t have a fast rate. yet, wouldn’t species not be able to survive if it were slow? Would we be able to breed different varieties of dogs if it were slow? What about peppered moth survival or bacteria resistance? Finches beak sizes in a matter of a few births?

              You will have to specify what odd positions you refer to.

              The last post I made was in reply to aaron I think who claimed that animals off the ark would have nothing to eat after the flood. Yet information about the KT extinction stated that plants being wiped out would create more fungi and in turn many snails and insects which the mammals could feed on until plant species came back fully. (I have a cat that eats quite a few insects when he finds them.)

              The KT extinction clearly mimics a world wide flood event.

              • Ian

                The post I was responding to was your response to a previous comment where I pointed out that nobody I had come across, on any side of the debate, claimed only mammals survived the KT event. My last comment was just a response to you making up a whole new bunch of claims to debate the point. Which is futile.

                As I said I don’t care to debate you. You don’t need to debate. You just need to go learn some basic biology. Until you do that, any discussion of what you think is as irrelevant as discussing calculus with someone who can’t add up. Sorry. You’re just thrashing around making stuff up, and it does nobody any good to humor you.

                Occasionally you tweak up and seem to want to find out something. That’s cool. Always here for that.

            • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

              re:
              I’m more interesting in trying to figure out where you’re coming from. Are you someone who stumbles into some of these odd positions because you don’t realise or can’t think through that they are side effects of the claims you’re making? Or are you someone who really does hold them based on some religious conviction: because you have your own version of creationism?  

              how do you begin to answer these kinds of questions?
              how can you ask “where did this idea come from?” when most people have no idea about the field “history of ideas”? or how their thinking fits into a greater universe of discourse?

              • Ian

                Nothing nearly so fancy, Richard. cdbren, as we’ve seen, argues from strange directions: sometimes claiming that evidence from the KT boundary means such and such, sometimes claiming that high level phyla had common ancestors, some times making vanilla YEC claims. I wonder if the former stuff is significant, or accidental. That’s all. No need of history of ideas.

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

                  this question you asked rather well-=I’m more interesting in trying to figure out where you’re coming from. Are you someone who stumbles into some of these odd positions because you don’t realise or can’t think through that they are side effects of the claims you’re making?=-
                  a similar ? does occur to me often when talking to people. in particular, there are two guys i’ve met after church who are really conservative, they claim hades is in the center of the earth. i’ve never encountered anyone that has held on to that Biblical notion and have never seen any local church/pastor preaching it. i’ve talked to flat earthers, neo confederates, KJV-only and a few others over the years in this debate, who would be to the right of YECists on a scale of elements preserved from an ANE worldview. but like you, i really haven’t gotten a handle on what community cdbren is learning his stuff from.

      • Gary

        For my buddy, cdbren, I can’t resist…since you referenced the wiki on opisthotonic death posture, and didn’t say why 7 chickens matter for any point you are trying to make. I would suggest not using that research anymore. According to the BYU researchers, they used both frozen and fresh, plucked chickens. I can only assume they went to the local grocery store to buy them. How long were they dead? I assume they were bled before they were packaged. Any perservatives or hormones in them? Why on earth would anyone use plucked chickens to substitute for an animal that died in the wild? I went to the wiki ref 4), and then went to the web site for the vertebrate meeting the paper was presented at in Las Vegas. I couldn’t find the research paper. I think the BYU researchers were only looking for a way to get a free trip to Las Vegas, on BYU’s dime. Quick, go to Von’s, get some chickens, and we’ll submit a paper for Las Vegas in three months. I couldn’t post on the new location, since it didn’t work yet.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    How do you know that such things occurred, when you reject the methods used to determine such things about the past? Or are you now admitting that you don’t reject the methods, but only selectively reject the conclusions?

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Gary asked that I create a new thread for the ongoing discussion, since the number of comments has passed 300, and that can indeed make it a hassle sometimes. I’ve created a new post to continue the conversation, should you find that makes it easier to do so:  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2011/12/ongoing-discussion-of-how-answers-in-genesis-does-violence-to-the-bible-and-not-just-science.html 

  • Anonymous

    Dr. McGrath,

     

    You attack Answering
    Questions in Genesis before engaging the exegetical arguments offered
    by Answering Questions in Genesis. Now in all fairness to you you did
    offer “some” engagement with the Scriptures themselves. But to
    suggest as you do throughout your article that Answering Questions in Genesis
    “misconstrues” the Scripture without demonstrating from the
    Scriptures how they do that doesn’t prove your point. Furthermore by offering
    no explanation of the passage under consideration all of your points are muted.
    If you want to be taken seriously Dr. McGrath then follow the advice you offer
    to Answering Questions in Genesis and “not misconstrue” the
    Bible. Offering your opinion
    is not the same as actually explaining the passage of Scripture and you should
    know that considering you are a Professor of New Testament. The quality of
    scholarship in this article is seriously lacking and not to be taken seriously.

     

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Dave Jenkins, if this were an article, I would absolutely agree with you. But this is an individual blog post on my blog. It is one part of an ongoing discussion and treatment of the topic, which I have been blogging about since 2005. I would encourage you to read some of the many earlier posts focused on matters of exegesis, science, and other aspects of the topic. If there is something crucial that I have neglected, or that it would be worth me reposting, please do let me know!

    • Anonymous

      Dr. McGrath,

      I challenged you to engage the Scriptures and what do you do “you refer me to another blog post”. Why would I go read other things you have read if you cannot substantiate your arguments from Scripture but instead choose to attack the opposing position without engaging the Bible because “its a blog post”? 

      You say, “But this is an individual blog post on my blog.” Are you not a New Testament Professor? It seems to me that you are engaging in the very thing that you accuse Answering Questions in Genesis of “misconstruing the Bible”.  The fact is you are trying to provide an argument in your post that Answering Questions in Genesis is wrong but you never engaged the Bible to demonstrate your position. You say this is just a blog post and not an article, but I would say by trying to persuade others this “blog post” is an article. The dismissive nature of your response demonstrates that at least to me you can’t be taken seriously as a scholar since a scholar especially a New Testament scholar would have engaged in meaningful exegesis and not thrown my comment under the rug. With all due respect, the inconsistency you have demonstrated from your article and your comments tell me that any further engagement with you will prove fruitless, which is why I won’t be responding any further or reading any of your other work.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

        re:
         the inconsistency you have demonstrated from your article and your comments tell me that any further engagement with you will prove fruitless, which is why I won’t be responding any further or reading any of your other work. 

        it’s been awhile since we’ve seen a drive by poster here *grin*.
        must be the exposure from Ken Ham’s facebook page reference.

        • Anonymous

          Actually I didn’t, I came because I saw James post on google plus.  Being a lot less presumptuous will help you to engage others in the future Richard.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    So are you saying that since you have not provided complete evidence for your viewpoint in your comment on this blog, therefore your position is inadequate? I really don’t see how your “criticism” amounts to anything more than asking me why I didn’t write everything I think about this subject and every argument relevant to it in every blog post I have written on the subject. My response it that if you ask yourself whether you have posted everything you think and every relevant argument in each of your comments on this blog, and if not why not, then you will understand why I consider your complaint a distraction.

    If you meant this as a request for me to address some aspect of this further, or share links to where I have already done so, I would be more than happy to oblige.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    For newcomers here, this may be useful: a round-up of the major posts related to creationism from the first few years of this blog’s history: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2008/09/blogging-creationism-the-highlights.html

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Sorry, Patheos has had some glitches today, and some points went missing. I guess we’ll just have to continue the conversation here!

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    @davejjenkins:disqus , can we please start over, and see if we can clarify what your objection is? First of all, are you referring to an actual article that I have written, or is your complaint about an entry in my blog? You keep referring to an “article” which makes me think that I might be misunderstanding when I thought you were referring to my blog entry.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Cdbren, you pay lip service to the Scriptures, but I hope you are not still so deluded as to actually believe that you accept the truthfulness and eternal validity of everything in them, from the dome and the Earth producing life by spontaneous generation at God’s command, to institutions such as slavery, all of which you are happy to pretend aren’t there so that you can persist in the deception that you are accepting what the Bible says and adhering to it.

    You are even willing to play fast and loose with math in order to have Matthew’s genealogical structure seem to serve the purpose you think a genealogy should. And you are happy to either substitute Mary for Joseph or introduce a levirite marriage the Bible doesn’t tell us about in order to harmonize the contradictions between Matthew and Luke in their genealogies.

    It is your prerogative to do all of the above. But to then claim that those who treat the Bible honestly are not accepting the authority of Scripture is downright shameful. I hope that one day you realize just what your behavior looks like. Perhaps then you will understand that it is tpsuch hypocrisy and dishonesty that drives far more people away from Christianity than mainstream science does. And even science pretty much only leads to people losing their faith because deceivers like you tell them it ought to, and they make the sad error of believing you.

    • Anonymous

      I’ve never said to anyone in my life that mainstream science is incompatible with faith in the Bible.

      I’ve shown you solid explanations for all the things you claim about the Bible, yet you just ignore them. I have not played fast and footloose with math. You can clearly read that Matthew counted the names twice. He says so right there. They are also clearly different genealogies. Anyone can see that.

      You think because people thought the sky was a solid dome that God HAD to have created one simple because of a word the writer used to represent the sky where birds fly. And then placed the sun and moon inside of it. That is just plain bad theology.

      To say the bible has mention of slaves and then turn that into God and Jesus advocating slavery is just ignorant. Then to ignore the many passages condemning slavery is also bad theology.

      Your approach reduces God to something He is not.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

        re:
        Then to ignore the many passages condemning slavery is also bad theology. 

        quote one verse in the Bible condemning slavery.

        • Anonymous

          You are grossly misusing the term “Bond Servant” to mean something that you want it to mean. The bible recognizes servants but never condones slavery.

          You misuse the word servant just as you do with evolution.

          ——-
          “The Bible uses the Hebrew term ebed to refer to slavery; however, ebed has a much wider meaning than the English term slavery, and in several circumstances it is more accurately translated into English as servant or hired worker.”

          Jewish Encyclopedia (1901), article on Slaves and Slavery

          “It was common for a person to voluntarily sell oneself into slavery/a bond servant for a fixed period of time either to pay off debts or to get food and shelter.”
          ——-

          Ex.21:16
          He that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

          Lev.19:18
          Love thy neighbor as thyself.

          Lev.25:10
          Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.

          Lev.25:17
          Ye shall not therefore oppress one another.

          Dt.24:7
          If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel,
          and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

            one of the reasons to pursue the analogy between YECism and Dabney’s defense of slavery is to show how a political settlement-ie the civil war- forced a change in Biblical interpretation so that now even the descendants of Dabney do not recognize the change that has overcome their interpretation of the Bible.

            one of AiG’s major points is that they contend for the faith once and for all delivered to the church. since Jesus believed Moses taught a 6 day recent creation, then they do. pretending this unbroken chain of biblical interpretation. yet they have flip flopped on this issue, not just a simple flip, but now they defend “Scripture doesn’t teach slavery” with the exact same arguments, liberal not literal, arguments that Dabney’s opponents used. 

            AiG contends they believe God’s Word and will not change their interpretation because science points in a different direction. yet this very same community changed their stand on the issue of slavery so much that their intellectual descendant cdbren uses the same arguments dabney’s opponents did, classic liberal generalizations, unaware of their provenance.  the same type of argument theistic evolutionists use to challenge YECists. the only consistent people are the neo confederates, still holding to dabney’s faith.

            history does change an interpretive communities belief about the Scripture.
            science does change an interpretive communities belief about the Scripture. 
            it is just that AiG’s and evolutionnews minions are ignorant of the changes, having flushed them down the memory hole.

        • Anonymous

          Richard, I would bet that you would compare working at a job slavery as well? Selling yourself through an application to work somewhere and then being subject to that companies pay rates, rules and regulations, having to be on time for work, etc. Treating your “masters” with respect and being subject to them.

          This is exactly the case as described in the bible although in conditions with much more poverty.

          servant
           
          — n
          1. a person employed to work for another, esp one who performs household duties

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

          don’t you even see the breakdown of your literal hermeneutic?

          just as it broke down during the years preceding the american civil war. there are NO verses condemning slaves or slavery. zilch, nada, zero, none. the only way to make the case is to be involved in higher order arguments about freedom, about man stealing, about justice. 

          this is exactly the difference between the conservative and liberal traditions in Bible interpretations. it was first quakers, then boston unitarians, (the socinians in dabney if you had bothered read him) the more liberal Christians like the beechers that began to argue abolition. it was a liberal vs conservative split, just as evolution is today, but the conservatives, who like you, teach that the literal meaning of words is more important than the gist of a sentence. who supported slavery.

          but anyhow, support your statement.
          re:
          Then to ignore the many passages condemning slavery is also bad theology. 

          show one verse in this form:
          Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, 

          where it teaches: slaves should be freed, slavery is a moral evil. just one verse equivalent in strength and ease of interpretation. no generalizations. something as clear and unambiguous as you claim the 6 days of creation means a young earth is.

          • Anonymous

            Richard, we need to go back to where you placed the word slavery where it should be servant. Otherwise it would be saying to be a slave to Christ, which is incorrect.

            “Servants, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,…”

            The original word did not mean slave the way you are using it as an English word, which I have shown twice now from outside sources and not my own conjecture.

            In light of the evidence, your premise falls flat.

            • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

              Cdbren, you are once again deciding what Hebrew words mean when you don’t know Hebrew, just like you decide what science means without knowing the basics of the scientific field. 

              You are entitled to your own beliefs, but you cannot simply make up your own facts. Please stop, it is incredibly frustrating. Rewrite the Bible by redefining words as much as you choose, but please stop complaining that others who care about linguistics and evidence ought to think in the same bizarre and twisted way that you do!

            • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

              is this your evidence that  

              re:Then to ignore the many passages condemning slavery is also bad theology.

              your misunderstanding of the word doulos?
              it means slave. not a voluntary servant as you pulled out of the air. do you have any idea of the sheer amount of greek texts uses the word doulos exist?

              re:
              which I have shown twice now from outside sources  

              is this your evidence that doulos means servant?
              Jewish Encyclopedia (1901), article on Slaves and Slavery 

              if so, then
              oops.

              • Anonymous

                I believe we were discussing OT passages which were not written in Greek.

                “The Bible uses the Hebrew term ebed to refer to slavery; however, ebed
                has a much wider meaning than the English term slavery, and in several
                circumstances it is more accurately translated into English as servant
                or hired worker.”

                James, can the original Hebrew word mean various things? Like slave, servant, man servant, servant of Israel, subject?

                • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                  The fact that a word has a range of meanings does not allow you to say that it never has one of those meanings in contexts where the evidence suggests otherwise.

                  • Anonymous

                    Re: “The fact that a word has a range of meanings does not allow you to say that it never has one of those meanings in contexts where the evidence suggests otherwise.”

                    Ditto

              • Anonymous

                Richard, I see you switched over to a NT passage. My bad.

                In any case my concordance says that dulous can mean slave as literal or figurative and as involuntary or voluntary. That leads us to actually read the context surrounding the scripture which is proper Bible study.

                Case solved and what I stated earlier confirmed, for Hebrew as well as Greek language.

                • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                  At last, we have the solution to this matter before us! All we need to do is get concordances that say “day” or “creation” can be “literal or figurative” into the hands of young-earth creationists and then no one will make these nonsensical and inconsistent cases of the sort we have seen here!  :-)

                  • Anonymous

                    So now you are bashing concordances that take years of study to compile…

                    So how would you translate “ignorant” James, if you needed to translate it to say Russian? 

                    It could mean lacking knowledge or it could mean merely being rude or just uneducated or it could mean easily angered. 

                    Just as with yom or ebed you would have to carefully study the context and the time period in which it was written. As well as if the passages are written in historical, poetic or figurative style.

                    That is what I am doing. 

      • http://www.rethinkingao.com Mike Beidler

        James,

        It is clear from cdbren’s numerous posts that he can’t argue his way out of a paper firmament.  No need to continue debating the issues with him since he does a fine job of laying out his theological, historical, and scientific ignorance for all to see.  He’s doing your work for you.  Time to sit back, relax, and watch the train wreck.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

        let’s take stock for a moment.

        you said:
        To say the bible has mention of slaves and then turn that into God and Jesus advocating slavery is just ignorant. Then to ignore the many passages condemning slavery is also bad theology.  

        to which i responded–>
        re:
        Then to ignore the many passages condemning slavery is also bad theology. 

        quote one verse in the Bible condemning slavery.
        this type of evidence, uses the word slave, condemns slavery, like this verses condones it.

        Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, 

        —–
        you tried to turn the hebrew word for slave into servant and wage-slave to reduce any emotional impact of the word slave. merely a diversion.

        after some more evasion you did notice that the verse i quoted as an example of what constituted proper evidence was from the NT not the Hebrew Bible. however at no time have you actually offered any verse in evidence that God is against slavery, that Moses didn’t think slavery was an acceptable social institution or that Jesus himself had any issue with greco-roman or israelite slavery. despite the fact that you stated clearly “many passages condemning slavery”.

        all Jesus had to do to free Christianity from the scourge of slavery was one little verse analogous to what he did contra divorce in  Mark 10:11–12, Jesus says only,. “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her.

        yet no such verses exist. despite your contention that “the many passages condemning slavery”, the only way to make a case against slavery is to use the very same hermeneutic that non-YECists use to interpret Gen1-3, “by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” to show that God does not teach that the earth is young. that YECists say is an invalid technique crying that the words themselves like “yom” stand alone. you pick and choose your hermeneutical techniques based on what you what to prove. if yom stands alone so does doulos.

        otoh you demand that “yom” be a 24 hour day in the midst of a 7 day week, and then because the conservatives lost the civil war they rewrote their interpretation of slavery, forgetting Dabney et al completely, and now those same communities use the exact same verses to “prove” that God does not condone slavery that the liberal abolitionists used against their fellow conservatives just a few generations ago. 

        the only consistent ones are neo confederate, flat earth, geocentric, snake handling, demon exorcism practicing folks. YEC have already compromised their positions and are nothing more than useful idiots in the secularization process in the eyes of these to their right.

        the fact that you can’t hold to this position that the Bible is teaching each plank in the ANE and greco-roman Palestinian worldview as binding eternally on all subsequent believers consistently is the real issue. you seem to pick which elements you find congenial and ignore the history of the rest in the greater Christian community.  so either the worldview common to those folks is incidental and being used but not taught or you need to move up the slippery slope to the right a few notches to be more consistent.

        • Anonymous

          Richard, the context in which “yom” is used is with “and there was evening and morning”. So in that context it can only mean a literal 24 hour day.
          ——–

          In the context of the OT use of the Hebrew word “ebed” it was clearly used as a servant, voluntarily doing a job to pay debts, although at the lowest, menial job. We can find this out by the history of the time period. 

          Also I gave bible references that speak against stealing someone and selling them into slavery as well as verses that proclaim liberty and freedom.

          Not to mention verses allowing the freedom of servants after a time, clearly showing they were not “property”.
          ———

          The NT use of “doulos” is obviously used as “servant” if you look at the context of how it is used throughout the NT. 

          It is quite simple if you actually keep it in context and not pull it out to mean whatever you want it to mean. I am keeping within context of the biblical passages. 

          • Anonymous

            quoted from the youtube segment:
            “The Greek ‘doulas’ means “slave.” Yes, it’s really that simple:It you look at the dictionaries, It’s quite clear that the person is owned… I think we’re getting confused and reluctant to use the word ‘slave’ because we think that because there is the word ‘slaves,’ that the Old Testament approves of slavery. And I think it’s very much better to say that the Old Testament is trying to improve the life of slaves, rather than pretending they’re not slaves.”from:http://www.baylyblog.com/2011/12/if-you-had-the-stewardship-of-the-english-standard-version-would-you-have-allowed-this-discussion-to-be-filmed-and-put-up-on.htmland the bayly brother’s big point is?quote:”God didn’t know how negative the connotations of ‘doulas’ would be today so we need to help Him do a better job of communicating.Someone once said that blunt language cannot hide a banal conception. On the other hand, banal language apparently is quite effective at hiding a blunt conception.In the process of hiding the blunt conception of slavery, though, these men left behind the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture.”it is amazing how the same issues pop up in other contexts, if you’re looking *grin* (it’s actually an attention thing, you find what you are looking for)

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    @cdbren:disqus  your last comment was simply more of the same mere assertions, misrepresentations and inane babbling that you’ve already offered. Many of us have been trying to interact with you, and it is you who has ignored the points that we have made. 

    I believe that you can do better than this. Please try.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    OK, so you accept what the Jewish Encyclopedia says, that in many instances the term is referring to slavery? That while there were laws making it illegal to simply kidnap a person and sell them as a slave, and there was a law requiring slaves be set free every 50th year, there had to have been slavery for there to have been any reason for laws of this sort? 

    • Anonymous

      Of course James. Look at what you typed. “Illegal to sell them as a slave”.

      The servants mentioned in the scripture you reference allowed themselves to be hired to work menial jobs to pay off debt. The bible is not condoning stealing people and making them slaves.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Cdbren,

    They were prohibited from kidnapping fellow Israelites and selling them as slaves. Explain how that becomes a prohibition of all slavery in your insistent twisting of the Bible. Explain how all the laws related to slaves/servants make sense if only servants who are employees rather than property are in view.

    • Anonymous

      If they were property, why are they released?

      If you are a scholar and can’t understand scripture, how am I to help you? I already showed you many examples that the bible talks about servants, the rules for servants but never condones slavery. Meaning stealing a person, forcing a person into servitude, and not paying them. No one in the bible was forced into it by their masters. They were forced into servitude by the economic conditions of that time.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

        re:
        No one in the bible was forced into it by their masters. They were forced into servitude by the economic conditions of that time. 

        most slaves were war captives, both in the Scriptures and in greek-roman history. falsely diluting the moral outrage against slavery into servants or wage-slavery doesn’t change the issue. the Bible nowhere condemns slavery but makes numerous statements supporting and condoning the practice. the NT is written in the time of massive enslavement due to constant Roman war. where do you think the Israelites went in the aftermath of 70 and 132AD revolts? they were enslaved and transported around the empire.

        but please produce the evidence you claimed:
        re:Then to ignore the many passages condemning slavery is also bad theology. 

        or apologize for misleading us as to what Scripture really teaches.
        where are all these many passages????? you claim.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Because ancient Israelites believed that God doesn’t view human property the way modern Americans do, perhaps?

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Cdbren, when a word in another language has a range of meaning that overlaps with several in English, you cannot simply assume that if some instances correspond best to one English word, all uses in the Biblical literature do so. That is not how language works. You need to actually look at each instance and do the sort of painstaking exegetical work that young-earth creationists are loathe to do, because it would involve acknowledging that understanding the Bible involves more than sitting down with a preferred English translation and reading it against the background of one’s own modern culture and worldview.

    • Anonymous

      Re: “Cdbren, when a word in another language has a range of meaning that overlaps with several in English, you cannot simply assume that if some instances correspond best to one English word, all uses in the Biblical literature do so. That is not how language works. You need to actually look at each instance and do the sort of painstaking exegetical work that young-earth creationists are loathe to do, because it would involve acknowledging that understanding the Bible involves more than sitting down with a preferred English translation and reading it against the background of one’s own modern culture and worldview.”

      I agree. 

      I also agree that the creation story was written in a manner for the people of that time to understand and not all technical details were brought forth. But that doesn’t mean that God didn’t create exactly as he stated and in that exact order and time frame. God could have done it in any way that He pleased. 

      Just because we have Genesis along side Moses’ writings does not mean that Adam and Eve did not have the same knowledge and stories. Don’t you think the creation myths through time are similar to Genesis because the real story of creation was already known about from the beginning?

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

        re:
        Don’t you think the creation myths through time are similar to Genesis because the real story of creation was already known about from the beginning?

        here is some collections of creation myths
        http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/creationmyths.htm 
        http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html

        read a few.
        do they really seem to be memories of a common creation event?

        actually lots of people have attempted this task
        google perennial philosophy 
        for a good example.

        afaik, no one thinks the common thread looks anything like Gen1-3

        look at something like:
        the 7 day week-only occurs in near middle east
        why is something so crucial to Gen never occur outside of this area?
        don’t you think a memory of a 7 day week would be preserved?

        is there really any evidence that they are talking about the same event? none. nope.

        • Anonymous

          Richard, I have heard a lot of people claim Genesis was stolen from other myths. Some have said that on these posts I believe.

          I believe the 7 day week was preserved as far back as the Babylonian civilization. That goes back to the time of Noah and pretty much the start of civilization after the flood. China, Japan, Hindu and other cultures had a 7 day week far back into their time periods. 

          So it was not confined to the middle east. 

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven-day_week

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

            re:
            China, Japan, Hindu and other cultures had a 7 day week far back into their time periods.  

            i would dearly love your references to these cultures having 7 day weeks.
            before they encountered the sumerian one in historical time.
            chinese possibly adopted 7 day week in 4th C from nestorian monks.

            two obvious cultures to look at are maya and inka. they had to be at least 1 independent invention.
            mayan had 2 weeks, one 13 days and the other 20.
            inkas had 10 day weeks.

            afaik, both the ancient chinese and egyptians had the most natural week-10 days. china’s was 2 cycles of 5, demonstrating its origin.

            i’ve been working on this for more than a decade so i eagerly await your references to set off another round of research.

            • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

              quote from nytimes on a.plantinga
              Mr. Plantinga says he accepts the scientific theory of evolution, as all Christians should. Mr. Dennett and his fellow atheists, he argues, are the ones who are misreading Darwin. Their belief that evolution rules out the existence of God — including a God who purposely created human beings through a process of guided evolution — is not a scientific claim, he writes, but “a metaphysical or theological addition.” 
              from: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/books/alvin-plantingas-new-book-on-god-and-science.html

              • Anonymous

                Yet another discovery that shows the evolution theory (molecules to man, fish to mammal, dinosaur to bird) can’t work biologically. 

                “…bioelectrical signals are essential for the proper formation of the head and face in frog embryos.

                …if indeed it is the case that higher-level organization is determined
                independently of the nucleotide sequence, then it appears even more
                doubtful that mutating DNA alone can be causally sufficient to explain
                the origin of new body plans.”

                http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/the_face_of_a_f054131.html

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

                  perhaps you would take a moment and explain the issue of developmental polarity in fertilized eggs, the associated issues surrounding cleavage planes and how these all relate to ionophores and how they in their turn produce an electric field in a cell. i’ve always found the topic a bit hazy. 

                  being as this is the science underlying your link and its not really explained in this article, perhaps you would help fill in our knowledge gaps.

                  • Anonymous

                    Richard, maybe there is something in the link below. If you have something to add, maybe you could post it or research it yourself instead of asking others to be your research gophers. 

                    http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/16/1/6.full

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

                  dear cdbren, did you see my request for your references?

                  re:China, Japan, Hindu and other cultures had a 7 day week far back into their time periods.   

                  i’ve been unable to repeat your research on this topic. it would save me time/effort if you’d share yours.

                  • Anonymous

                    I gave the main link when I posted.

                    Earliest known mention of a 7 day week in China was from Fan Ning, who lived in the late 4th century in the Jin Dynasty, while diffusions from the Manichaeans are documented with the writings of the Chinese Buddhist monk Yi Jing and the Ceylonese or Central Asian Buddhist monk Bu Kong of the 7th century (Tang Dynasty).
                    ——-
                    Surviving diaries of the Japanese statesman Fujiwara Michinaga show the seven-day system in use in Heian Japan as early as 1007.
                    ——-
                    Hindu: The Garga dated 1st Century BCE, refers to the seven-day week, Sunday to Saturday.

                    Shashi, Shyam Singh (2000). Encyclopaedia Indica India, Pakistan, Bangladesh Vol. 76 Major dynasties of ancient Orissa: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh. Anmol Publications PVT. LTD. pp. 114–115. ISBN 8170418593, 9788170418597.

                    Kane, Dr. Pandurang Vaman (1930-1962). History of Dharmasastra
                    ——-
                    Then you have the Babylonians and Jews who go back to the time of Noah, which both used 7 day weeks. 

                    Senn, Frank C. (1997). Christian Liturgy: Catholic and Evangelical. Fortress Press. ISBN 0800627261, 9780800627263.
                    ——
                    Kerry Farmer remarks that “Some Historians believe that around 2350 BC Sargon I, King of Akkad, having conquered Ur and the other cities of Sumeria, instituted a seven-day week, the first to be recorded.”

                    • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      Cdbren, why is it that you question even the most logical inductive reasoning in the natural sciences, and yet you are happy to talk about “the time of Noah” when there is no evidence other than texts composed much later, and which may be mythological in character, for a “time of Noah”? If you are not going to accept well-reasoned induction, then please do not simply assert things that have not been and cannot be argued for nearly as persuasively as the case for biological evolution.

                      And please stop using the phrase “molecules to man” unless you are referring to the account in Genesis, which the phrase fits but which I thought you agreed with.

                    • Anonymous

                      James, I will always define my use of the word Evolution whenever I use it. Others do not do so, making it to be some magical word that can do anything and be anything.

                      While I believe species can adapt to environments, using information already there, I do not think there is any process that can go beyond the basic embryo body plan and create complex sets of information to go up a chain of common descent with new body features.

                      Should I use another word for “evolution” and what should that be? What you define as evolution is different than what I define as evolution. So being specific is important.

                      For instance, when you use biological evolution, what do you mean? Because new complex information in a genome has never been observed and as you can see by recent studies, the embryo body plan may not be controlled by the genome alone. 

                      Common descent from a common ancestor is not proven at all. 
                      ——-
                      There is evidence for Noah’s flood. It is called fossils buried in sediment all over the Earth, evidence that the climate was different in the past, flood stories from all civilizations, The Grand Canyon, the Mid Atlantic Ridge to name a few. 

                    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

                      re:
                      the embryo body plan may not be controlled by the genome alone.  

                      google:
                      epigenetics
                      or read your own link http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/16/1/6.full
                      polarity in fertilized egg
                      or read your own link http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dvdy.10180/full

                      or read the link i offered earlier
                      http://www.colorado.edu/MCDB/MCDB4650/Cl05.pdf

                      so what?
                      the central dogma
                      dna->mRNA->proteins 
                      has been deeply qualified since it was formulated.
                      in 1958(is that recent or distant past in your/AiG’s system of observational v historical science?)
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_dogma_of_molecular_biology 

                      the embryo body plan may IS not be(ing) controlled by the genome alone.

                      again…SO WHAT? this is common knowledge, even at my minimal  pay grade of merely interested bystander of mobio.

                    • Anonymous

                      Richard, you posted:

                      on the scientific issues
                      http://www.colorado.edu/MCDB/M… 
                      best single page on the issue of cell polarities i was able to find in several hours of research. note, chemical polarity not electrical
                      to read and UNDERSTAND the evolutionnews articles’ citation-
                      ——-
                      Yet it is bio-electrical. Bioelectrical charges happen in chemical polarity.

                      That is the reason I explained ion flux or am I reading “not electrical” incorrectly or taking your response incorrectly? If so, I apologize.  

                    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

                      re:
                      Bioelectrical charges happen in chemical polarity. 

                      yes, with the addition of one VERY IMPORTANT THING.
                      show you understand the papers that you link to.
                      in particular why is simple chemical gradient an insufficient but necessary condition for electrical polarity?
                      specifically what other condition must be added to this gradient to create a charge?

                      in:
                      on the scientific issues http://www.colorado.edu/MCDB/M… best single page on the issue of cell polarities i was able to find in several hours of research. note, chemical polarity not electrical 

                      the issue is simple chemical gradients causing the cleavage planes.
                      i learned this 15 years ago in dev-bio class. the knowledge of bio-electrical fields in dev-bio is newer than this, i found most of http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dvdy.10180/full
                      new information. for which i am grateful.

                    • Anonymous

                      CHALLENGE TO CDBREN
                      yes, with the addition of one VERY IMPORTANT THING.
                      show you understand the papers that you link to.
                      in particular why is simple chemical gradient an insufficient but necessary condition for electrical polarity?
                      specifically what other condition must be added to this gradient to create a charge?

                      it’s Christmas vacation, i guess he’s unavailable to answer this challenge. can someone who’s monitoring the thread, who knows something of biology, tell him? 

                    • Anonymous

                      James, looking up “biological evolution” I find this:

                      “Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of
                      life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see
                      documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means
                      that we’re all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and
                      whales.”

                      So there you go. Molecules to man is a good definition of what you call “Biological evolution”. I really don’t see what problem you have with me using what the actual definition means. Perhaps I should use “common ancestor to man”? But that would really not be specific enough.

                      Perhaps you are afraid I will expose evolution for the sham that it is? 

                      I like how they throw in there that small scale changes like beak size is evolution but they are not the same processes. 

                    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

                      re:
                      So there you go. Molecules to man is a good definition of what you call “Biological evolution”. I really don’t see what problem you have with me using what the actual definition means. 

                      no, you are conflating the topics of abiogenesis and evolution, again.

                      re:
                      “Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we’re all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.” 

                      where exactly is the “molecules”  in this quote which you offer as support for your “Molecules to man” mantra?

                      you are arguing thusly:
                      i (dis)believe a->b “molecules to man”
                      here is my evidence c->b “common ancestor to man”
                      but your “evidence” falls short by a molecules->first replicator step.

                      since a->c is not evolutionary theory but abiogenesis theory, another but related field.
                      ET requires a inheritable mutational unit, simple molecules are insufficient.

                    • Anonymous

                      Richard, the common ancestor mentioned therein. Where did this common ancestor come from? An alien mothership?

                      How am I confusing abiogenesis and evolution when that is how the supposed common ancestor came about? They are both connected. 

                      Both theories are also equally lacking something. Complex programmed information.  

                    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

                      re:
                       the common ancestor mentioned therein. Where did this common ancestor come from? An alien mothership?could be-that is panspermia theoryin any case, ET doesn’t do anything before cell. that is abiogenesis’ task.re:How am I confusing abiogenesis and evolution when that is how the supposed common ancestor came about? They are both connected. connection does not imply identity. siamese twins are connected, yet distinct people. ET and abiogenesis are not the same thing, one picks up close to where to other stops.re:Both theories are also equally lacking something. Complex programmed information.there is no good definition of this. there does not appear to be a need for God to constantly tinker with life. see fully gifted creation idea by howard vantill. 

                    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

                      re:
                      I gave the main link when I posted. 

                      you offered a wiki link that didn’t show your assertion at all.

                      i don’t believe you are a very careful or competent researcher.

                      assert:
                      God told Adam that He had created the universe in a 7 day work week.
                      Noah knew this and transmitted it in such a way that those working on the tower of Babel knew it. (noah as bottleneck)
                      The Chinese had a echo in their culture of this information because they are descendants of those at Babel.

                      you stated:
                      So it was not confined to the middle east.

                      what your links are evidence for is a diffusion, a radiation event of a 7 day week from Sumer to China about the 4thC BCE. likewise the other places but i’ll just look at china.

                      Why? what did you miss, what did you misunderstand? what piece of data did you miss that shows it is a radiation-a diffusion event, not an echo of creation week? i’m a bit tired of doing your research, actually. if you’re truly interested you can figure it out.

                      re:
                      asking others to be your research gophers.  

                      i would not ask you to be a researcher at all, you are obviously not good at it. i want to know how you came by the misinformation you preach. what is it that informs your opinions, how you came to believe such wrong nonsense. 

                      re:
                      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/the_face_of_a_f054131.html

                      you do not understand even this misunderstanding of the basic science. 
                      you have presented no evidence that you can even read the basic information about the sources of polarity in a cell.

                      i even gave you the scientific terms
                      perhaps you would take a moment and explain the issue of developmental polarity in fertilized eggs, the associated issues surrounding cleavage planes and how these all relate to ionophores and how they in their turn produce an electric field in a cell.  
                      so you could, as is your method, google and misunderstand them.

                      i think your inability to understand the basic science needed to read ET papers, your inability to think logically and to outline how to solve an intellectual issue, is obvious from the way you interact with people here.

                      for the edification of the lurkers:

                      on the scientific issues
                      http://www.colorado.edu/MCDB/MCDB4650/Cl05.pdf 
                      best single page on the issue of cell polarities i was able to find in several hours of research. note, chemical polarity not electrical
                      to read and UNDERSTAND the evolutionnews articles’ citation-

                      imho, the most interesting is the ancient 10 day chinese week http://www.wfu.edu/~moran/planets_y_powers.html
                      with a 5 day subunit.
                      just like the inkas.
                      but of course both could simply be counting on their fingers
                      *grin*
                      rather than echoes of a common origin.

                      when i was in 5th grade, my teacher told me than i was not learning up to my Christian faith. my mom told him i believed, and he informed me that God held Christians to a higher standard of truth and practice and that i was not performing up to God’s expectations.
                      your activity here is not even up to that 5th grader i was so many years ago, so i offer you Mr Rondeau’s advice: if you really love God you will do better than the mediocre job you have offered up as your conversation here.

                    • Anonymous

                      Richard, it seems you are again resorting to attacking me and seeming to try to appear superior to me. Bullying another person instead of rational debate makes you appear quite desperate. 

                      Molecules do indeed carry an electrical charge and ion flux does indeed happen in cell division in the embryo and body plan placement.

                      I think maybe you are afraid of your house of cards coming crashing down.

                      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12454924

                      I have shown to you that the oldest known writings and civilizations had 7 day weeks. All that you have shown is that it changed in different civilizations over time as they tried to use other types of weeks and today we all use a 7 day week. 

                      I wonder why that is? Um….perhaps because it has been preserved since Noah to today and is the best number to use? *gong*

                    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

                      re:
                      I have shown to you that the oldest known writings and civilizations had 7 day weeks.  

                      no you haven’t you can’t even read your own wiki links with any level of comprehension.
                      these are your quoted links—>

                      Hindu: The Garga dated 1st Century BCE, refers to the seven-day week, Sunday to Saturday. 

                      Surviving diaries of the Japanese statesman Fujiwara Michinaga show the seven-day system in use in Heian Japan as early as 1007. 

                      Earliest known mention of a 7 day week in China was from Fan Ning, who lived in the late 4th century in the Jin Dynasty, while diffusions from the Manichaeans  

                      —–
                      key words for comprehension:
                      diffusion radiation

                      key idea summary, a bullet point
                      7 day week REPLACED an earlier week length in China, Hindu, Japan
                      the 7 day week is NOT the ORIGINAL week in any of these cultures

                      a commentary on your competence based on the evidence seen here is not a personal attack, it is a conclusion based on the evidence presented.

                      you are an idiot is an ad hominem, you are presenting an incompetent argument and do not understand the basic issues is not.

                    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

                      re:
                      Molecules do indeed carry an electrical charge and ion flux does indeed happen in cell division in the embryo and body plan placement. 

                      please present evidence that you have the foggiest idea of what this means. for in fact it is trivial nonsense, something that happens regularly in your postings when you stray from direct quotes and try to word something yourself. 

                      yes-Molecules do indeed carry an electrical charge
                      yes- ion flux does indeed happen in cell division in the embryo
                      so what? where is the conclusion or the point of this sentence? there isn’t one, it appears to be a truncation of something you misread, again. hence it is trivial nonsense. 

                      quote:
                      “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?”  

                      unfortunately you don’t listen or read for comprehension but apparently scan/skim for evidence to support your own ideas. a shame, for some of your links, like http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dvdy.10180/full
                      are excellent summary papers full of information and worth the time to read.

                      for example:
                      what exactly is “body plan placement”? placement where? in the developing embryo, in dna, ie hox complexes? 

                      ps
                      body plan placement

                      quote:
                      Some of them are subsequently reorganized to the epithelial structures of the mesoderm such as somites. Thus, reorganization of epithelial structures is essential for coordinated progression of body plan placement and cell specification. However, regulatory mechanisms for this reorganization have not been fully understood. To understand this cell adhesion–dependent morphogenesis, it is important to understand the molecular basis of cell adhesion of epithelia in developing embryos.

                      from:
                      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2169488/

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662663242 Richard Williams

                  “Study to show yourself approved to God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. ”

                  —gong.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    The widespread use of a 7-day week beyond Israel provides another good reason to think that what we find in the Torah is Israel depicting their God’s creative work using the metaphor of a human work week, rather than the derivation being in the other direction. Thank you for sharing this, Cdbren!

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Cdbren, when others think, research, provide evidence, aim for clarity, and then expect you to do the same, that constitutes neither an attack nor bullying. If you do not wish to be asked to be coherent, then do not converse. If you do not wish to be asked to provide evidence, do not make unsubstantiated claims. If you do not wish to be called inconsistent, then do not associate yourself with a charlatan who cites the human genome project as evidence that we are all related, but denies evidence from the genome that we are all related even beyond the realm of humanity.

  • Anonymous

    Darwinian “evolution” is not in dispute. Mere change within a species over time is a fact.

    Neo-darwiniasm is what is in dispute. That “unguided natural selection acting upon random mutations is the driving force that produced the complexity of life”. This has many scientific problems. 

    Such unguided processes do not build complex biological features.

    Neo-Darwinianism evolution is a theory (or rather a hypothesis) that has been falsified by scientific evidence. 

  • Anonymous

    The main idea of this blog is Bible accuracy or inaccuracy as far as Genesis, not an evolution debate. (Though the discussion usually does go in many different directions at times.)

    There is nothing wrong with the Genesis account. God explained creation the best way for ancient man to understand and also created in just that way, in six real days. Also included is an entire genealogy tracing back to the original two humans that was only thousands of years ago. 

    This has been verified by the NT as well as Jesus himself. 

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Indeed, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Genesis in general or its creation stories in particular. But there is indeed something very wrong with those who do violence to what they text actually says by pretending it is not an Ancient Near Eastern creation account which shares a cosmology that was held in those times that cannot be reconciled with modern science. That is a problem with some interpreters of Genesis, and not with Genesis itself.

    Since you seem to have chosen to return, on Christmas day of all days, merely to repeat yourself, I will repeat some questions I asked you previously about some of the same assertions you made just now, cdbren. How do you know that God created in 6 days? Were you there? How do you know what Jesus said about the creation accounts in Genesis. Were you there?

    • Anonymous

      They are not my assertions. They are the assertions of God’s word. So you are basically asking God’s word if it is true. That is up to you, personally, to decide.

      • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

        It is your assertion that the Bible is God’s Word, and it is your assertion that if one regards the Bible as God’s Word, then one has to understand that to imply its inerrancy, its historicity, its scientific accuracy in those places you choose to regard it as being such (e.g. The 6 days, but not the solidity of the skies or the fixity of the earth). Everything is merely your assertion, unless you can make a case for it. And if you are willing to argue and reason inductively, then you must acknowledge the legitimacy of those who disagree with you about some points or all of them doing the same.

        • Anonymous

          Again, it is not my assertion that the Bible is God’s word. The Bible itself states this. I am simply believing in what it says is true based on several supernatural evidences that no other book can replicate. (e.g. Many books, many authors, historical accuracy, etc. that all line up.)

          Morning and evening and day seem clear to me, the sky seems quite solid and is there everyday I wake up, and the earth still seems quite fixed in place since I was born until now. 

          • Anonymous

            re:
            Again, it is not my assertion that the Bible is God’s word. The Bible itself states this. 

            you do not understand J.McG’s argument.
            the Bible can not say anything about itself, because all the books which comprise it are written long before the book-Bible itself exists.
            Paul can’t claim that the NT is inspired simply because it wasn’t written when he wrote his letters.

            the only text that hints at your assertion is 2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God
            which, given a moment of reflection can only refer to the scrolls of the hebrew scriptures. since the table of contents of your english bible is itself not part of the bible, that is, nowhere is there a scripture listing what books are supposed to be included or excluded from the book. you can not even state that the bible defines itself, let alone what it’s relationship to God is.

            so you don’t even have Tim asserting that the Bible is inspired, at best it can mean that there exist some Hebrew Scriptures that the author thinks inspired, but since the Hebrew canon isn’t fixed for at least another 100 years, you don’t even know which scrolls the author of 2Tim was asserting inspiration for. it might be further complicated by the fact that the author of 2 Tim is probably speaking about the LXX not the Hebrew scrolls themselves.

            what you are doing is throwing your interpretation of inspiration gleaned from from 2Tim over a book that did not exist for several hundred years, simply because you have an english book in your hands and seem to be completely ignorant of it’s history.

            • Anonymous

              Don’t forget the entire problem of whether or not 2Tim was written by Paul in the first place. 

      • Anonymous

        re:
        They are not my assertions. They are the assertions of God’s word. So you are basically asking God’s word if it is true. That is up to you, personally, to decide. 

        yes, they are your assertions about how you interpret Scripture. You have no access to the very mind of God, you have access only to your thoughts concerning the words you read in your Bible. as many people do, you  conflate your interpretation of what the words mean with the very words themselves. 

        we are asking if your interpretation of what the words in your Bible mean to you make sense to us.

        A. an author has an idea in his head, he writes it down in words in his language(this is probably 2 steps). B. someone collects these words and now there exist hebrew words on a scroll, entitled bereshit. C. someone translates those words into english and puts them into a book, genesis-part your english bible.(this also is probably 2 steps) D. you open that book and read those words, this is an act of interpretation, of deriving meaning from a text. it is at least 3 levels(probably 4 or 5) from the meaning in the minds of the scrolls’ writers. 

        at best, that meaning in the minds of the writers might be God’s word, what is in your mind as you read it can in no way be considered identical to God’s word. this confusion of the words and the meaning of words is a serious error on the part of the fundamentalist/evangelical/conservative community.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Are we really going to have to repeat every step of the converswtion thus far? The Bible says nothing about the Bible because there was no complete Bible containing all the works the Bble now contains when the works that have become part of the Bible were composed. But even if the Bible said something about itself, that wouldn’t make it so. As you (unwittingly?) admitted, the Bible includes statements of what human authors perceived to be the case which do not correspond with reality as understood when examined more closely and with superior tools of investigation.

  • Anonymous

    Regarding the New Testament, Sir Frederic Kenyon ( British paleographer, biblical scholar and director of the British Museum)  said :

    “It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible
    is certain. Especially is this the case with the New Testament . The
    number of manuscripts of the New Testament, early translations from it,
    and quotations from it in the oldest writings of the Church, is so large
    that it is practically certain that we have a true reading of it today.
    This can be said of no other ancient book in the world” 
    (“Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts”).

    • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      Cdbren, you are confusing historical reliability and usefulness with other things you are claiming, such as inspiration and, even more than that, inerrancy. No one seriously disputes that the Bible at times has historical information, nor that the text has transmitted sufficiently faithfully for us to have confidence that the basic contents have reached us intact. But you seem to want to say more than that, and do not seem to understand that that something more is not what the evidences and authorities you cite demonstrate nor a corollary of the sorts of accuracy they attest to.

      • http://www.rethinkingao.com Mike Beidler

        James, all cdbren has done is turned the Bible into a self-licking ice cream cone.  If he really wants to taste the Bible for what it is, he needs to detach himself from his emotional arguments and allow the Bible to speak for itself instead of him speaking for it.  The Bible needs no defending, for the entire collection of 66+ books makes no claims for itself.  However, I doubt he can do this any time soon.

        If he is able (perhaps will a little bit of help from his more rational friends), he may find the Bible’s flavor to be much richer than he could ever have anticipated.  After I gave up inerrancy, I felt a whole lot better, and my faith a whole lot richer, if not stronger.  So much potential, so little hope …  Alas!

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    The first step towards understanding the Bible, which is a form of communication in human language, would perhaps be for Cdbren to show the capacity to communicate with people in his own time and language, and potentially much more straightforward then making sense of a text from another time, culture and language. Alas, Cdbren has ended his commenting hiatus by repeating assertions he made previously as though no one had responded to them.

    To paraphrase the Johannine epistles, how can one hope to understand the mind of God, whom he can’t see, if he is unwilling or unable to understand the mind of other human beings, whom he can see? :-)

    • Anonymous

      James, God can and did preserve his words from a different culture and language. 

      • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

        But you don’t believe that. Those who know the languages and study them and translate the Biblical text out of a love for and dedication to God’s Word, agree that it makes claims about the world (and the value of pi) that do not agree with what careful observation and study of the world shows to be the case. And so instead of believing that the Bible has been accurately preserved, translated and understood, you gravitate to charlatans who will tell you that the Bible means or that specific individual words in it mean something other than they do.

        You do not accept that the Bible has been accurately preserved and translated except by picking and choosing some translations and explanations that say what you want to hear, or can be twisted to mean what you wish them to.

        That seems to me to be the very opposite of what you said in your last comment, Cdbren.

        • Anonymous

          I am sorry that you believe some scientists claims about the world from their presuppositions and want a naturalistic answer for everything.

          The bible does make claims about the world that do agree with observation and study. 

          Where is the value of pi given? Are you referring to 1 Kings 7:23-26?

          Calculated out having the thickness of the bowl at a handbreadth taken off as stated the inner radius would be (outer radius 5 cubits) 90-4=86

          Inner circumference is 30 cubits or 540 inches. 

          540=2(pi)86 or 540=172(pi) 

          Which when divided back is 540 divided by 172 = 3.1395348837…

          I have seen a couple different variations on this because a cubit is not exact but 18 to 22 inches and whatever the cubit is will determine the handbreadth which corresponds to each individual. For instance there is a thickness of the bowl to take into consideration giving the diameter a 9.549 thickness if a cubit is determined to be 18 inches and handbreadth 4 inches. 

          They all equal our estimation of pi which is 3 or 3.14. It was a common practice to round a number in those times when reporting it much as anyone else does today unless speaking as a mathematician or to other engineers.

  • Anonymous

    Ok, I’m going to clear this up once and for all:

    This post is inspired and completely free of all error:

    Cdbren is wrong.

    There we go, case closed. This post has multiple witnesses and says very clearly that it is without error. Furthermore, this post is historical accurate:

    Barrack Obama is President
    Christmas was yesterday
    I like buffalo wild wings

    It even contains prophecy:

    And ye behold, the written of these words shall soon fall asleep.

    This conversation has provided me comfort beyond a shadow of a doubt that I did not err leaving fundamentalism.

    • Anonymous

      this only works if your words are written on something really valuable like golden plates.

      • Anonymous

        They were actually found on platinumum plates buried outside under the tree in my backyard. However, the angel Patheosnator gave me strict instructions that I was to not show the plates to anyone!

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    So the Bible is only mathematically and scientifically precise when you say it is? Or is it just that mathematical and scientific precision only matter when you say they do?

    You seem, after many attempts to get through to you, to still have no idea what the issues are, what the role of presuppositions is, nor how selective you are being. 

    When you start to rail against the naturalistic presuppositions of the meteorologists and embryologists, let me know. I won’t find your viewpoint persuasive, but at least I’ll give you credit where credit is due for your consistency.

    • Anonymous

      What do you mean? Where is the bible not precise on pi and why is it not precise to the exact decimal of pi? Which by the way can go on and on…so the writers of the bible would still be writing the correct answer to pi today. 

      I am never selective. I am reading the bible in a straight forward manner, based on context and proper time period. I propose it is you who is being selective. In regards to the words day, slave, firmament, etc. 

      You will have to specify precisely what naturalistic presuppositions of meteorologists and embryologists that you are speaking about. 

      Weather events are observational science that can be observed and tested. Embryology is also observable and testable. I am in agreement with those. Neither make any statements not in accord with the bible that I know of. So again…..what do you mean?

      • Anonymous

        “Weather events are observational science”. So would you agree that the effects of weather are observable science?

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    I’m shocked, Cdbren! You accept “molecules to man” embryology, when the Bible unambiguously states that it is God who knits a human being together in the mother’s womb?

    • Anonymous

      So wait. Are you implying that the embryo develops from scratch???
      It doesn’t form a zygote with DNA information intact? 

      What is molecules to man embryology? A term you made up? Correct me if I am wrong but I don’t think molecules contain complex genetic information.

      You have also not given an answer as to where the bible defines pi or defines the circumference of a perfect circle. 

      • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

        I find it amusing how you illustrate that you don’t even know what DNA is, since you contrast it with molecules.

        “Molecules to man” is a silly phrase you introduced into the discussion to misrepresent evolution. It fits embryological development at least as well, or as poorly. Take your pick. If you realize just how silly your phrase is, we will finally be making progress in this conversation.

        • Anonymous

          Well, there is Darwinian evolution which we can all agree is fact. That there is slight changes within species that can be observed.

          Then there is Neo-Darwinism which states everything comes from a common ancestor and natural selection. Going back to a time when there was no life. To a primordial form of life evolving from a cell or cell division. Hence “molecules to man”. 

          Of which there is zero evidence for. 

          Unless you will disagree that RNA is a molecule?

          You are avoiding my other questions….

          • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

            No, you seemed to disagree that DNA is a molecule which carries genetic information, and which is involved in turning molecules into man – unless you are, thank goodness, ready to stop using that ridiculous phrase.

            • Anonymous

              James, I would disagree that DNA is a molecule because it is not. It is a nucleic acid. 

              • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                Cdbren, what is a nucleic acid?

                1 Kings 7:23

                • Anonymous

                  1 Kings 7:23 says nothing about pi or circumference of a circle. 

                  Yes, a nucleic acid can be defined as a biological macromolecule. 

          • Anonymous

            How many times are you going to confuse abiogenesis and evolution?

            “Of which there is zero evidence for.” Only if you close your eyes real tight and shout “Na na na na na!”

            http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

            From now on I think the best way to respond to your assertions is to simply list their number on talk origin’s index to creationist claims, located here http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/. Everyone can read your comments and that and decide for themselves who is being truthful.”There is slight changes within species that can be observed” False. Speciation has been observed. Claim CB910.Abiogenesis is without evidence. Claim CB050.

            • Anonymous

              Aaron, commonality in organisms is not proof of common descent. Nor is the fossil record proof of slow, gradual evolution. It speaks strongly against it.

              • Anonymous

                re:
                 commonality in organisms is not proof of common descent. 

                not PROOF, evidence of. do you have any idea just how many proteins(~1960-1980) then dna(now, since it’s lot easier, quicker, cheaper) have been sequenced from numerous creatures and then clades built from that information? all evidence, lots of it, for common descent.

                • Anonymous

                  Who built the clades?

                  I can see how that could be used within a species maybe but still no proof of common descent.

                  • Anonymous

                    re:
                    Who built the clades? 

                    an interesting question.
                    imho, someone with a scientific epistemology would have asked “what are the mathematical rules researchers use to build the parsimonious branching tree structures that underlie cladistics?”  

                    someone with a religious epistemology where the contention is that the character or the relationship of a person to God matters as much or more than the content of their writings asks “who built these clades?”

                    afaik, there is no evidence that scientific epistemology has a moral dimension. there isn’t a hindu physics nor a islamic biology or a christian chemistry. there are christians who do biology, but their scientific work is indistinguishable from a self professed druid or druze doing the same science.

                    • Anonymous

                      So a scientist or scientists made up the clades? 

                      In that case, since a motorcycle engine is less advanced than a car engine that you would determine it was invented first and the car after? 

                      I don’t think the entire genome of every creature has been mapped out as yet. Plus the fact that clades are also based on non-existing evolution ideas. Like birds are a clade but reptiles are not since they are “believed” to have descended from birds. 

                      You see how presupposition works here? There is said to be parallel evolution, different times of divergence, similar yet different features of species, etc.

                      Clades is very poor proof of common descent…..you got anything better?

              • Anonymous

                Fossil record speaks against evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

                Looks like there is plenty of transitional fossils to me, seems creationists reinterpret the evidence to fit into their preconceived ideas :)

                I believe a while back I gave a list of species in the fossil record that spoke to reptile evolution, mammal evolution, and hominod evolution. 

                • Anonymous

                  aaron: I see lots of ideas of transitions. I see no fossil evidence at all. No examples, no pictures of these fossils. The truth is that all species appear fully formed in the fossil record. 

                  The only list I remember seeing is within species. Not one to another.

                  There is zero evidence for common descent evolution and no specified cause that could make it happen. 

                  I am sensing that you are extremely gullible.

                  • Anonymous

                    “I am sensing that you are extremely gullible” Projection again.

                    A simple search on the internet can get you pictures, I’m not going to make a cheesy children’s picture book for you, this isn’t AiG and I’m not Jack Chick.

                    Here’s some more transitional fossils:

                    Globigerinoides trilobus to Orbulina universa
                    Australopithecus (human ancestry)
                    Haasiophis terrasanctus (Snake with hind limbs)
                    Pezosiren portelli
                    Anomalocaris and Opabinia
                    Sinosauropteryx prima (Dinosaur with feathers)
                    Basilosaurus (whale with legs)
                    Acanthostega (fish with simple limbs)
                    Anomalocaris

                    Notice that these are not between species.
                    Look pictures!! http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html

                    So back to my question, you mentioned that weather is “observable science”. I asked if the effects of weather are observable science. Since you didn’t answer, I will answer for you: Yes, they are. 

                    Next question:
                    Since the effects of weather are an observable science, that means that we can observe, measure, test, and tell the difference between different types of weathering. In other words, we can test how wind erodes, how a glacier erodes, how a flood erodes, how ocean currents erode, how water erodes a canyon, etc, correct? This is all observable science, correct?

                    • Anonymous

                      aaron, really? Whale with legs? Nope. Fish with simple limbs? Looks like a large salamander to me. 

                      Even if you did produce a fish with real legs it would still not prove common descent or evolution from one species to another. Dinosaurs with fur does not prove it either. Birds have a delicate design for aviation. 

                      Are you trying to say the examples you listed are transitional fossils or is it some kind of a joke? 

          • Anonymous

            re:
            Then there is Neo-Darwinism which states everything comes from a common ancestor and natural selection. Going back to a time when there was no life. To a primordial form of life evolving from a cell or cell division. Hence “molecules to man”.  

            the neo-darwinian synthesis says nothing about how the first replicator arose, only that it starts with a specific kind of replicator, inheritable with mutations subject to various kinds of selection…. single common ancestor (which may not be true) is a conclusion based on the information that we currently have. as we have consistently pointed out, the formation of the replicator is the field of abiogenesis, not evolutionary theory.

            is the first replicator a complete cell? no.
            see rna world theory for an example.
            does ET talk about the characteristics of the first cell? yes. do we know what it was? no. it probably hasn’t existed for several M years. see minimal gene set needed for life and for obligate intracellular parasites.

            past topic:
            are you going to demonstrate your mastery of the paper you quoted and tell us what else is needed for an biological electric charge as well as a ion gradient?

            or explain the difference between single point invention and diffusion in the case of a 7 day week. and how the information can not be a historical relic of either creation week, or noah’s flood or tower of babel, because it (7 day week)diffuses in historical times.

            • Anonymous

              RmWilliams:

              Darwinian “evolution” is not in dispute. Mere change within a species over time is a fact.

              Neo-darwiniasm is what is in dispute. That “unguided natural selection acting upon random mutations is the driving force that produced the complexity of life”.

              This has many scientific problems. Such unguided processes do not build complex biological features.

              Neo-Darwinianism evolution is a theory (or rather a hypothesis) that has been falsified by scientific evidence.

              • Anonymous

                re:
                Darwinian “evolution” is not in dispute. Mere change within a species over time is a fact.Neo-darwiniasm is what is in dispute. That “unguided natural selection acting upon random mutations is the driving force that produced the complexity of life”. This has many scientific problems. Such unguided processes do not build complex biological features.Neo-Darwinianism evolution is a theory (or rather a hypothesis) that has been falsified by scientific evidence. 

                you assert so many things, with such confidence, yet when you get into the details of it you seem to misinterpret so much of it that i really don’t think you understand the basic science involved. 

                re:
                “unguided natural selection acting upon random mutations is the driving force that produced the complexity of life” 

                the entire field of genetic algorithms is good evidence that you are wrong. the random walk through a specific space does seem to produce complexity over time, showing in numerous fields that selection operating on mutations does work without some guiding hand.

                afaik, there is no good scientific evidence falsifying evolutionary theory and i suspect if there is that ID types will misinterpret it as well..

                • Anonymous

                  rmWilliams:

                  There is no scientific support for the idea of natural selection of random mutations or any other unintelligent cause that can explain the complexity of life.

                  Darwinism, common descent, evolution from one species to another, whatever you want to call it is bad science. But to reject it you have to accept the alternative. Which is ID. Which you won’t do simply because you don’t like that as the better alternative. 

                  Quantum mechanics or just plain old math shows evolution from a common ancestor can’t happen. Unguided processes can’t produce new complex features. Unless you know of a new cause?  

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Since Cdbren seems to think that “looks like” is a sufficient basis for assessing matters, perhaps it would be a good idea to ask him what he imagines a transitional form would look like. Given his bizarre misunderstandings of evolution, the odds are that he wouldn’t recognize a transitional form if he saw one.

    • http://www.rethinkingao.com Mike Beidler

      James,

      Odds are he won’t admit to being a transitional form himself. If he can’t recognize that, he won’t recognize any other example set before him.

      Still trying to figure out why you’re still indulging his fantasy of exposing us believers in truth as deniers of the same. Your time could be put to better use, no? Say, blogging on the parallels of the King James Only movement and Klingon Only Shakespeareans …

    • Anonymous

      That is really good point James. I don’t think he understands that all “transitional animals” are “fully formed”. I remember having the same idea as a creationist, that for something to be a transitional fossil it had to literally be like cat-dog.

    • Anonymous

      How does this complex change in new information happen? I have been asking this but no one seems to know.

      “Specified complexity can be defined as an extremely improbable phenomenon (factoring in the probabilistic resources at one’s disposal) which conforms to an independently given pattern. Millions of bases in a sequence-specific order qualifies as specified complexity, as does the molecular machinery under-girding flagellar assembly, as do the carvings on mount Rushmore. The crystal lattice structure of an ice crystal, on the other hand, would not qualify as specified complexity.

      And gene duplication does not provide new genetic information. Sure, duplicated gene copies subsequently mutate and diverge and explore combinatorial sequence space in search of novel utility. But it is not at all clear that a blind search can find the bases of those functional fitness peaks within a plausible time frame — especially when multiple non-adaptive mutations are required to facilitate an innovation in function. And this problem is only further accentuated when regulatory sequences also have to be altered.

      Neo-Darwinian evolution conversely predicts that the major distinct animal body plans will arise after numerous small-scale speciation events — that is, we ought to observe small scale differences adding up to big differences. The actual fossil record, however, reveals the exact opposite of that — with the major taxonomic groups (phyla) appearing first, and the minor taxonomic groups (e.g. genus, species) arising only later.”
      ——-
      “It is a popular view within evolutionary biology that the fossil record provides key evidence for common ancestry. But no phylum can be traced from a previous phylum in the fossil record. Indeed, this phenomenon holds with regard to the lower taxonomic categories (e.g. classes and orders). While transitional series can, in some cases, be found with respect to genera and species, the scope for change is clearly limited. And in instances that are often thought to be the best-case scenarios in the fossil record (e.g., the evolution of the whale), the transition occurs far too abruptly to be reasonably attributed to a blind Darwinian process. The fossil record, far from establishing Darwinian theory, only succeeds in hammering one more nail into Darwin’s coffin.”

  • Anonymous

    Now here is an interesting observation. Cdbren, when presented with evidence of the mechanisms of evolution (natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, recombination, gene flow as well as extinction and speciation acting on the macro level) complains that there are no transitional fossils to show this occurring beyond a species level, and that these mechanisms cannot produce new information. When shown that evolution has produced new features, such as the new ability of some microorganisms to metabolism man-made compounds, he complains thats there are no such mechanisms capable of producing such change and there are no transitional fossils showing such change. When shown transitional fossils (between species, genus, family) he complains that there are no mechanisms to produce this change and that there are no examples of producing new abilities and features.

    Finally, to top it all off, his scientific method is basically “what something looks like”. This is the difference between real science and pseudoscience. Real scientists observe, experiment, record, and draw educated conclusions. Pseudo scientists observe and then try to manipulate the evidence to make it match their beliefs. Hence “it looks like a salamander to me” is good enough for creationists.

    • Anonymous

      aaron, you are not looking at the big picture. The extreme complexity in the genome as well as the way an embryo develops. 

      What you are seeing is change within a species in the cases you present and you want to see that as evolution to a new species. It doesn’t work that way in biology. 

      You seem to think it easy for a species to evolve say a fin to a foot when in scientific reality it is not possible. Not to mention the other features that have to change as well in the same time frame.

      Natural selection, mutation, genetic drift are not mechanisms that produce new complex genetic information on a bit by bit basis or all at once. Try again.  

  • Anonymous

    aaron, I will state it more simply for you. We see “evolution” or adaptation within a species because the complex genetic information is already there to facilitate that.

    Evolution from one species to another with new features not inherent in that species does not and can not happen because unguided random unintelligent processes can’t produce new complex information in the genes.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    OK, so at least Cdbren is admitting that the issue is not the evidence, since so much has been presented and a far greater amount is out there to be looked up. It is his belief that evolution of new features and new species cannot happen, and so no evidence is allowed to change his mind.

    • Anonymous

      James, there is no evidence there to do so. There is no evidence that species have evolved from a common ancestor or have evolved new features. In fact, the evidence is in favor of evolution from one species to another as NOT happening. 

      In fact, everything from the creation of the universe to the laws of the universe to the Earth to the sun to life arising on Earth is so finely tuned as to point to intelligent design as the only scientifically sound answer to life.

      The evidence speaks very loudly. I am amazed that someone like you still holds onto such an archaic notion of Darwinian evolution/common descent. 
      It is bad science really. 

    • Anonymous

      James, you regularly put words into peoples mouths that they have not said and also put words into the bible that are not there. 

      The issue is very much with the evidence. You seem not to take a straight forward reading of the bible as it is and question everything written there in yet you take some scientists interpretation of scientific evidence as sound fact. All the while ignoring other equally sound evaluations of said evidence and label it pseudo science. 

      You are lost within your own world of make believe naturalistic causes. 

      • Anonymous

        re:
        The issue is very much with the evidence.  

        no it’s not. you do not understand the scientific evidence. even when you link to something, you show no evidence of even reading the science let alone understanding it.

        i’ve asked several times simple questions about the evidence you have presented, i’ve never seen a reply. 

        i took the time to edit a few and mark them so people could find them.
        so grep “CHALLENGE TO CDBREN”

        1. specifically what other condition must be added to this gradient to create a charge?—>science
        2.explain difference between diffusion and common source in 7 day week.—>history
        3.quote one verse in the Bible condemning slavery.—>theology

        • Anonymous

          1. I am not a scientist. I simply brought up a couple instances where evolution from one species to another is stopped by the embryonic stage, or development is not solely independent on genetic information, based on others research. It’s a real problem for Darwinian evolution/common descent proponents. 

          2. I have shown that as far back as ancient civilizations go they had a seven day week. (Babylonian/Mesopotamia) Some adopted a different week, went back to the seven then went back to something else. What does all this prove? Nothing. What does the entire civilized world use today? A seven day week. 

          3. I quoted verses in the bible against stealing a person and selling them as a servant. Basically I would need your definition of slavery because your definition today is totally different than the Hebrew word for slave or servant which was by their own choice because of debt they couldn’t pay.

          There are many verses about treating others as you would have yourself treated, about freedom, etc. I would say the main theme of the bible is about release from sin, slavery, oppression, etc. If you studied the bible you wouldn’t need to ask question #3.

          We’ve gone over all these issues before. 

          • Anonymous

            re:
             I am not a scientist. I simply brought up a couple instances where evolution from one species to another is stopped by the embryonic stage, or development is not solely independent on genetic information, based on others research. It’s a real problem for Darwinian evolution/common descent proponents. 

            —-
            you posted the link:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12454924
            with the comments:
            cdbren:Molecules do indeed carry an electrical charge and ion flux does indeed happen in cell division in the embryo and body plan placement.I think maybe you are afraid of your house of cards coming crashing down. 

            –however, after the weeks of discussion here, i know you don’t have the background information necessary to read this, rather fascinating scientific paper.

            so i asked a simple question. one i hoped would drive you to study and reflection. a simple chemical gradient will not produce a field, what else is needed?

            you propose crashing down ET’s “house of cards” and you can not even read your own linked to articles. did you even read it? 

            you still have the opportunity-your link presupposes some knowledge of ionic fields and how cells create and use them-what is needed beyond a gradient?
            cdbren:
            2. I have shown that as far back as ancient civilizations go they had a seven day week. (Babylonian/Mesopotamia) Some adopted a different week, went back to the seven then went back to something else. What does all this prove? Nothing. What does the entire civilized world use today? A seven day week. 


            once again you don’t understand your own links. a seven day week diffused from 2nd millennium sumeria, replacing an earlier week of 5 or 10 days. in egypt, in china, in india. it was invented in a particular time and place-sumer or it’s antecedents. it is certainly not an echo of noah or the tower of babel. the existence of a mayan 10 and 13 day week is sufficent evidence against that notion.  

            cdbren:3. I quoted verses in the bible against stealing a person and selling them as a servant. Basically I would need your definition of slavery because your definition today is totally different than the Hebrew word for slave or servant which was by their own choice because of debt they couldn’t pay.There are many verses about treating others as you would have yourself treated, about freedom, etc. I would say the main theme of the bible is about release from sin, slavery, oppression, etc. If you studied the bible you wouldn’t need to ask question #3.


            if you read history you would understand that slavery destroyed conservative christianity’s role in america because it was unable to biblically solve the issue. it had 100 times the passion that the abortion debate does today, it divided all the american churches. the opposition to slavery was the rise of liberal christianity, with it’s hermeneutics of love your neighbor overcoming the clear literal commands about slavery. it was a war of bible interpretation and the liberals won, the descendants of dabney now quote the abolitionists to prove that the bible doesn’t teach slavery, and it never did!. such a change is accompanied by this cry that we believe in an unchanging Scripture, nonsense. only if you ignore the facts of recent history.

            all i asked was 1 verse condemning slavery-there isn’t any.
            cdbren:We’ve gone over all these issues before. 

            and you didn’t understand the issues any better before.

            you want to bring down evolutionary theory, but you don’t even grasp the essential building blocks needed to understand it.

            • Anonymous

              rmWilliams: You know the book of Exodus? Maybe you could start your study of what the bible says about slavery there and why the Hebrews were there in the first place. You have also not defined your definition of slavery that I asked for. 

              I am not trying to bring down any theory. The evolution theory of common descent/all creatures changed to new species isn’t even a valid theory. More like a hypothesis that has already been proven wrong. 

              I was trying to discuss the bible. It is others on here that keep wanting to return to some outdated hypothesis. 

              I never proposed bringing anything down. If you could understand my plain statements I proposed that you and others are afraid of the theory failing. So are desperately trying to hang on to it.

              • Anonymous

                re:
                You know the book of Exodus? Maybe you could start your study of what the bible says about slavery there and why the Hebrews were there in the first place. You have also not defined your definition of slavery that I asked for.  

                it is not the text of exodus that is important but rather what people said it meant, what their interpretive communities taught about the text.

                defining slavery. when, where? it is a very variable institution over place and time. i’ve read dozens of books on slavery, did you even try to read robert dabney online? 

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    That someone who had to have it pointed out to him that whales are mammals thinks that modern evolutionary theory is “Darwinian” and is “bad science” doesn’t really worry me, for reasons that should be obvious. You keep asserting that evolution can’t occur, that there is no evidence, but the facts demonstrate otherwise. So all you are doing is showing yourself to be a liar as well as an arrogant ignoramus willing to pronounce boldly on matters he poorly understands.

    • Anonymous

      James, I never stated that whales were not mammals. Again, you are saying I said things I did not say. 

      Just because someone says something about a certain piece of evidence does not mean you have to blindly accept it James. You have to look at all evidence and all possibilities. Something you seem to rarely do. 

      Rather than constantly calling me names and making up wild assertions, why don’t you debate me using real evidence as I am doing with you? I assume it is because you can’t produce anything worthwhile so you resort to childish banter. 

      • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

        No, you simply lie about the evidence, and about what you have said in the past. You refuse to answer, presumably because you are unable to, detailed questions about relevant scientific evidence and conclusions, and then like any good charlatan, you try to use the rhetoric of being openminded. But I am openminded, and it is precisely because I was more openminded than you are that I looked carefully at the claims creationists make and was able to realize that they are bunk. It is only because I have had such an experience myself that I continue to press on and try to get you to realize that you have been deceived. You are the saddest sort of lost soul, the kind that doesn’t realize that he is lost, the kind that thinks he is sharing salvation when he is propounding lies and trying to lead others into darkness, because his deception is so great that he cannot even tell light from darkness any longer.

        So what would it take to get you to realize that you are in the wrong? What would it take to persuade you that you have been deceived and have become an instrument for the spread of falsehood? If you lack the humility to admit that you have made blunders related to basic science, and so ought to be seeking to learn rather than instruct others, then what hope is there for your mind or your soul?

        • Anonymous

          Again you don’t come out with anything concrete. Only vague accusations. 

          What am I wrong about? That unintelligent processes can’t produce complex genetic information? That is scientifically sound. 

          That God did not create as he simply states in Genesis? No one can say that He did or did not but the scripture is there saying He did it that way. Therefore you can’t come to the conclusion that God did not do it that way. Or call it fiction when it is clearly not written as such. 

          None of those are my assertions personally. 

          Apparently your salvation, your light, your God is natural processes and secular scientists words. My salvation, my light and my God is the supernatural God of the Bible and Jesus’ words. The same God that created all the special conditions just right for stars, planets, the earth, our sun and all life on Earth. 

          Darwinian evolution/common descent is not proven by any evidence and is basically bad science as I have clearly shown by different evidences that no one has refuted so far.

          Long ages of the earth are guesses based on the amount of elements at a certain point in the past. There is no way to know what amount of elements they started with. Basically you have to have long ages or evolution fails. In fact I have shown in the instance of whale evolution that based on fossil evidence there is not enough time for the whale to have evolved. This is true for a couple other species as well.

          Again, none of that is my personal assertion. It is from well known scientists with degrees, professors, teachers, etc. Like Jonathan M., Behe and Granville Sewell to name a few. From peer reviewed published papers.

      • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath
  • Anonymous

    It is important that one consider all the evidence relevant to embryology, and not merely the seemingly confirming evidence. Indeed, one of the biggest conundrums facing modern evolutionary embryology is the fact that early embryonic development is widely divergent, and phylotypic stages are generally attained by non-homologous developmental routes. This is especially striking since large-scale screens in organisms such as Zebrafish and Drosophila reveal that one thing which is uniformly NOT evolutionarily hereditable are modifications to early development (e.g., see Haffter et al., 1996; or Driever et al., 1996).

    Second, many of these structures are not functionally redundant, and serve important roles in the developing embryo. For example, the human so-called “yolk sac” is essential inasmuch as it is responsible for supplying the embryo with its first blood cells.

    To take another example, the pharyngeal pouches and ridges (the “gill slit” region) in humans does not develop even partly into gills. In fish, these structures are slits that allow water to enter in and out of the gills that remove oxygen from the water. In human embryos, however, the pharyngeal pouches develop into structures such as the thymus, thyroid and parathyroid glands. If this is the case, then whence the mandate for supposing that these systems are vestigial gill slits?

    As one 2009 article in New Scientist put it,[Biologist Michael Syvanen of the University of California, Davis] recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. This was especially true of sea-squirt genes. Conventionally, sea squirts — also known as tunicates — are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren’t chordates. “Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another,” Syvanen says.

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/fact-checking_wikipedia_on_com051711.html

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    That you can’t tell the difference between the bogus spin site “Evolution News” and actual reporting of results of actual scientific research also tells a lot.

    Evolution News relies on there being people like you, who know little enough about science that false claims peppers with scientific terminology are enough to dupe them.

    As long as you have your mind made up in advance, no evidence however clear is going to persuade you. As long as you are unwilling to consider the possibility that you might have been hoodwinked by charlatans, Cdbren, then your brain will work overtime to rationalize your worldview for you and filter out or find objections to counterevidence and counterarguments.

    Beleiving yourself wise, you have become a fool.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    I have offered a very specific accusation, with evidence. I believe that that has been the usual practice of most if not all of those who have tried to respond to your soreading of misinformation, and in the recent instance I mentioned, your exposing of your ignorance, editing away of the evidence, and denying it ever happened.

    Consider this: if the creationist sites you cite treat matters the same way you did in the case I documented, ought anyone to rely on them or consider them at all trustworthy? Is there any reason, given the evidence ranging from the Dover ID trial to your own actions, ought ever to believe anything that young-earth creationists or cdesign proponentists say?

    • Anonymous

      I understand why you want to oppose ID theory but to bring up Dover? You must be desperate….

      The Dover trial is pretty much a joke among ID theorists.

      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/its_time_for_so054551.html

      • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

        Since cdesign proponentsists treat things that are serious as a joke and as a joke that which should be taken seriously, what you wrote is no surprise. Nor is your attempt, akin to the behavior of many ID proponents at that trial, to carry on as though your recent deception had not been exposed publicly for all to see. 

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Cdbren, If you don’t know basic biology such as the differences between fish and mammals, and lied about your gaffe, how can you possibly think that your asserting over and over again ad nauseam claims such as that evolution is “a hypothesis that has already been proven wrong” will not be viewed as either one more lie, or one more expression of your ignorance, if not both?

    I appreciate your providing an illustration of the dishonest tactics of creationists. But don’t you think you’ve brought enough shame on your movement, and have dishonored God enough by associating your tactics with him? Why do you persist?

    • Anonymous

      James, actually the statement you have in quotes is from another scientist. Can’t find the quote at the moment. Maybe Behe, maybe Sewell. 

      Granville Sewell, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Texas El Paso said if you have a view of nature that doesn’t involve the supernatural, you have a view of science that is outdated by 80 years. 

      Most of the things I asserted here are not my personal assertions. 

      • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

        I have accused you of many things, but originality was not one of them.

        Having a worldview that includes the supernatural is not the issue. One can believe in the supernatural and still accept that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

        You really haven’t understood anything anyone has said to you here, have you?

        And you are still going to pretend your lack of elementary school level knowledge of biology and subsequent attempt to cover it up and lie about it has not been exposed? 

        • Anonymous

          James, what kind of “evolution” are you talking about again? 

          • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

            The same as all along. The same as mainstream biology currently speaks about. Perhaps you could have the decency to go back and actually read the comments and posts you have apparently ignored thus far, and this time actually try to listen to and understand what others are saying? To be asking basic questions after a discussion that has lasted through hundreds of comments either shows great incomprehension or great disrespect. Either way, you are in a position to do something about it.

            • Anonymous

              Oh, the idea of nature running in reverse to nature. Like a movie running backwards, evolution makes things better and more advanced when everything else in nature goes the other way. Some invisible and as yet unidentifiable force creates new complex information in the genome for new complex features.

              The main evidence they give for this, at least on the Wiki, is the universality and ubiquity of the genetic code. 

              I’m sorry but that strikes me as not very convincing and more in line with a common designer. 

              “Biology has been stuck, looking at the mechanics and it really has to move to a higher level where it
              embraces principles, and these principles are manifestly design
              principles.” Biologic Institute director Doug Axe.

              I’ve seen evidence for newly discovered whale fossils that don’t leave enough time for them to evolve. This is true of others like Acanthostega. I think I put a link to the article from evolution news. Here it is again.

              http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/fact-checking_wikipedia_on_com_1051951.html

              Do you even look at what other scientists are discovering or are you just partial to what you think is the truth? 

              http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/discovery_of_oldest_fully_aqua052021.html

              As a college-level invertebrate zoology textbook states, “Most of the
              animal phyla that are represented in the fossil record first appear, ‘fully formed,’
              in the Cambrian, some 550 million years ago . . . [t]he fossil record
              is therefore of no help with respect to the origin and early
              diversification of the various animal phyla.”

              http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/10/fossils_fossils_fossils_does_k004412.html

              http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/01/common_design_in_bat_and_whale042291.html

              • Anonymous

                re:
                 Some invisible and as yet unidentifiable force creates new complex information in the genome for new complex features.

                we have patiently explained both syncytin and the nylon bug to you. yet you continue to type such nonsense. mutation followed by selection are not invisible nor unidentifiable, here are two well understood examples of how mutation creates new complex features, one is a RV insertion co-opted to create a placenta, the other a frame shift mutation that creates a new never before seen protein that cleaves nylon. ignore them, chant the id mantra of no new information with your fingers in your ears, but everyone who cares enough about the topics to learn and study know YECists don’t really understand nor do they care about the facts of the matter. a shame, i expect more from those who claim to follow the God of Truth and the Creator.

              • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                So, you still don’t understand what scientists mean by evolution, and have no intention of listening to those who have tried to explain it to you, Cdbren?

              • http://www.rethinkingao.com Mike Beidler

                Polly,

                Is that all you eat:  ID crackers?

                • Anonymous

                  Mike, I read Scientific American and other science magazines as well as AIG articles. James rejects creationists articles as he claims their scientists don’t publish peer reviewed articles. 

                  Evolution News offers far better science articles and has articles by scientists that have many peer reviewed papers published.

                  That seemed to be your (James’) required criteria for “legitimacy”. Obviously the only thing you will accept is something that fits with what you want to hear regardless of the clear evidence. 

                  It all boils down to what I have said since the beginning. Your presuppositions, your starting world view colors your interpretation of the evidence. 

                  What needs to be determined is which answer best fits the truth?

                  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                    Cdbren, since you bungled basic science, I really doubt that you read science magazines. I am guessing that perhaps you skim them looking for things to quote mine, but don’t actually read them.

                    I suppose I do have a few major presuppositions. One is that people who know something about biology are more likely to draw accurate conclusions about the subject than people who seem to have forgotten even what they ought to have learned in elementary school.

                    I also have the presupposition that liars are untrustworthy.

                    But setting such things aside, you have just contradicted yourself. Either there is a truth that is a standard against which we can evaluate answers, or it is all the same data and we just offer differing interpretations of it. Which is it?

                    Since you botched basic biology that a child whose age is in single-digits, tried to cover up your mistake, lied about having made it, and now are pretending it didn’t happen, why on Earth would anyone believe that you have any interest in finding an answer that fits the truth? You have shown yourself to be interested in spin and deception, not truth, and so clearly no one ought to take you as their guide, nor trust the sorts of organizations you promote.

                    • Anonymous

                      James, the personal attacks are getting quite childish and tiresome.

                      If you have some new scientific input that can save the Neo-Darwinian Evolution theory of common descent/species magically changing into another species, I am all ears. 

                      All the evolution, long ages, life on other planets seems to me a very desperate attempt to prove God is not the God of the bible and does not exist. It’s like a man crawling across a desert trying to find a drop of water that isn’t even going to save him. 

                    • Anonymous

                      James: “I suppose I do have a few major presuppositions. One is that people who know something about biology are more likely to draw accurate conclusions about the subject than people who seem to have forgotten even what they ought to have learned in elementary school.”

                      So then why not accept the conclusions of biologists from Evolution News that I quoted and that have peer reviewed and published articles in mainstream science magazines?

                      Why not finally realize that those you cherry pick to listen to usually come to knee jerk conclusions to try to support a dying theory? 

                    • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      Cdbren, “Evolution News” is notorious for quote mining and for being as dishonest as you have been. Since you didn’t know that whales are mammals, it is perhaps not surprising that you also botch your categorization of people like William Dembski, mistaking them for biologists.

                  • Anonymous

                    re:
                    What needs to be determined is which answer best fits the truth? 

                    you don’t seem to understand basic biology, ie membranes and ion gradients.
                    you’ve shown no evidence that you understand the divergence of historical interpretation of the Scriptures, ie slavery and dabney.
                    you don’t seem to do history very well, ie 7 day week as diffusion from sumer.

                    and now you want to tackle epistemology?

                    -=you really really need to learn how to crawl before tackling that marathon=-

                    • Anonymous

                      Re: 
                      you don’t seem to understand basic biology, ie membranes and ion gradients.
                      you’ve shown no evidence that you understand the divergence of historical interpretation of the Scriptures, ie slavery and dabney.
                      you don’t seem to do history very well, ie 7 day week as diffusion from sumer.

                      and now you want to tackle epistemology?

                      -=you really really need to learn how to crawl before tackling that marathon=-
                      ——-

                      I am not trying to tackle any of those things. 

                      It is funny that you attribute other scientists conclusions and statements to something I personally said. Which is not true. 

                      A scientific theory can be wrong or indeterminate. 

                      “A theory is underdetermined (also called indeterminacy of data to theory) if, given the available evidence cited to support the theory, there is a rival theory which is inconsistent with it that is at least as consistent with the evidence.”

              • Anonymous

                re:
                “Biology has been stuck, looking at the mechanics and it really has to move to a higher level where it embraces principles, and these principles are manifestly design principles.” Biologic Institute director Doug Axe.

                a little more early morning research results.who is he-Doug Axe?:
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biologic_Institute 

                where might the quote come from:
                http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/doug_axe_darwin054141.html 

                i wonder if “the mechanics” are things like the nylon bug and syncytin where “the higher levels embracing principles” are chanting “no new information” loudly enough to drown out the voices of real researchers doing science? in any case, if someone doesn’t know the simple basic  requirements of a biological electric field(let’s see: nerves, chloroplasts, mitochondria) how are they going to recognize these “manifestly design principles” if they are present? simple put, how can you honestly expect to run when you haven’t mastered crawling yet? worse yet, defend not crawling as unworthy of your attention, as you sit unable to actually move anywhere under your own power.

  • Anonymous

    Since I don’t think most here will actually be open enough to look at the links I posted, I will share this:

    “It is a popular view within evolutionary biology that the fossil record
    provides key evidence for common ancestry. But no phylum can be traced
    from a previous phylum in the fossil record. Indeed, this phenomenon
    holds with regard to the lower taxonomic categories (e.g. classes and
    orders). While transitional series can, in some cases, be found with
    respect to genera and species, the scope for change is clearly limited.
    And in instances that are often thought to be the best-case scenarios in
    the fossil record (e.g., the evolution of the whale), the transition
    occurs far too abruptly to be reasonably attributed to a blind Darwinian
    process. The fossil record, far from establishing Darwinian theory,
    only succeeds in hammering one more nail into Darwin’s coffin.”

    • Anonymous

      re:
      Since I don’t think most here will actually be open enough to look at the links I posted, I will share this: 

      i have probably spent 40-50 hours reading your links you’ve posted on these few threads. i suspect an order of magnitude more than you have spent studying these issues yourself. afaik, you can not even read the science you stumble across, yet those links generally take an hour or more to read and understand, it takes you a few seconds to cut and paste them. who is really open to change and growth via research and study will be obvious to all the lurkers.

    • Anonymous

      re:
      “It is a popular view within evolutionary biology that the fossil record provides key evidence for common ancestry. But no phylum can be traced from a previous phylum in the fossil record. ”
      from:
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/fact-checking_wikipedia_on_com_1051951.html 

      the number of webpages that link to it=0
      i wonder if cdbren actually knows what a phylum is?
      if you read the wiki article on phylum it links to:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics 
      if you grep this thread for “clade” you will see that the term has been used several times, you might even find where i asked about the rules for determining a parsimonious branching tree structure(vs the supposed moral character of the researcher), the answer to that question can be found at 
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_phylogenetics there is some interesting reading on the topic at http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/04/down_with_phyla_1.html 

      but at the end of a bit of research i have yet to see anything about how this all involves “hammering one more nail into Darwin’s coffin”…..

  • Anonymous

    Nylon-Eating Bacteria

    In the case of nylon-digesting bacteria, as with the other examples,
    there is no reason to think that the nylon-eating capacity requires any
    novel information. As William Dembski explains:

    Nylonase appears to have arisen from a frame-shift in another protein. Even so, it seems to be special in certain ways. For example, the DNA sequence
    that got frame-shifted is a very repetitive sequence. Yet the number of
    bases repeated is not a multiple of 3 (in this case, 10 bases are probably the repeating unit).

    What this means is that the original protein consisted of repeats of
    these 10 bases, and since it is not a multiple of 3, it means that these
    10 bases were translated in all three possible reading frames (the
    second repeat was one base offset for translation relative to the first
    repeat, and the next was offset one more base, et.c). Moreover, none of
    those reading frames gave rise to stop codons. Since the 10-base repeat
    was translatable in any reading frame without causing any stop codons,
    the sequence was able to undergo an insertion which could alter the
    reading frame without prematurely terminating the protein.

    Actually, the mutation did cause a stop codon; but the stop codon was
    due not to frame shift but to the sequence introduced by the inserted
    nucleotide.Simultaneously, the mutation introduced a start codon in a
    different reading frame, which now encoded an entirely new sequence of
    amino acids. This is the key aspect of the sequence. It had this special
    property that it could tolerate any frame shift due to the repetitive
    nature of the original DNA sequence. Normally in biology, a frame shift
    causes a stop codon and either truncation of the protein (due to the
    premature stop codon) or destruction of the aberrant mRNA by the
    nonsense-mediated decay pathway. Nonetheless, the nylonase enzyme, once
    it arose, had no stop codons so it was able to make a novel, functional
    protein.

    Most proteins cannot do this. For instance, most genes in the
    nematode have stop codons if they are frame-shifted. This special
    repetitive nature of protein-coding DNA sequences seems really rare; one
    biologist with whom I’ve discussed the matter has never seen another
    example like it. Maybe it’s more common in bacteria. Thus, contrary to
    Miller, the nylonase enzyme seems “pre-designed” in the sense that the
    original DNA sequence was preadapted for frame-shift mutations to occur
    without destroying the protein-coding potential of the original gene.
    Indeed, this protein sequence seems designed to be specifically
    adaptable to novel functions.

    Even aside from these points raised by Dembski, it is not clear that the basis of this type of evolution is sufficiently well understood to allow for any triumphal assertions. Perhaps the answer is that the mutated enzyme had very low activity. And nylon is also similar to other substances that the
    bacterium could already metabolize — so we may be looking at small-scale evolutionary change, perhaps involving a loss of enzyme specificity. This hypothesis gains traction from Ohki et al. (2006), which shows strong structural similarity to the enzyme carboxylesterase. And it has been suggested that mutations affecting this enzyme’s catalytic cleft altered the substrate specificity of this enzyme such that it could hydrolyze nylon.

    • Anonymous

      we can google and read 
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/fact-checking_w053551.html
      why don’t you interact with the science yourself, in your own words, for your own understanding, thus demonstrating that you understand more than cut-paste from evolutionnews?

      re:
      Simultaneously, the mutation introduced a start codon in a different reading frame, which now encoded an entirely new sequence of amino acids. This is the key aspect of the sequence. It had this special property that it could tolerate any frame shift due to the repetitive nature of the original DNA sequence. Normally in biology, a frame shift causes a stop codon and either truncation of the protein (due to the premature stop codon) or destruction of the aberrant mRNA by the nonsense-mediated decay pathway. Nonetheless, the  nylonase enzyme, once it arose, had no stop codons so it was able to make a novel, functional protein. 

      note this:which now encoded an entirely new sequence of amino acids!!!!! no kidding. isn’t that what everyone has been saying to you? a frame shift does that, surprise surprise (well actual no, if you understand what a FSM is)

      • Anonymous

        rmWilliams: So a few edge of evolution examples that are not really “new” information is the evidence for much more complex changes across the entire range of species? Most of the cases cited involve a loss, not a gain of genetic information. 

        If this is all the evidence Darwinists have to offer then the paradigm is in deep trouble. 

        P.S. I was wondering if you are actually calling a new sequence of amino acids (providing the nylon bug didn’t have the ability already) new genetic information? 

        • Anonymous

          -=again you are trying to run before you learn how to crawl=-

          you apparently don’t understand the simple science, (insert any analogy to crawling here), you never have demonstrated that you can read your own linked to science, for example what allows ion gradients to become electric fields in biology? without these simple intellectual tools you can not understand ionphores, collapsing fields, voltage gated channels etc etc. this is all before the high level stuff like “an important role for ion flux in early embryonic morphogenesis” .
          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dvdy.10180/full

          your original link
          http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/the_face_of_a_f054131.html 
          it refers to:
          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21761475 

          given a lack of competence in handling the data how can you assert “This is controlled and directed, at least in some measure, by information beyond the DNA nucleotide sequence.” like EN does in the above link? which you quoted approvingly as “…if indeed it is the case that higher-level organization is determined 
          independently of the nucleotide sequence, then it appears even more 
          doubtful that mutating DNA alone can be causally sufficient to explain 
          the origin of new body plans.”

          -=again you are trying to run before you learn how to crawl=-

          if you can’t over a week’s time find the word MEMBRANE as the answer to my often repeated challenge to show you understand the basic science involved, how are you going to understand “an important role for ion flux in early embryonic morphogenesis” ???? which is essentially a marathon in the crawling-walking-running analogy

          you load up with provocative nonsense:
          “knee jerk conclusions to try to support a dying theory? ”
          ” Neo-Darwinian Evolution theory of common descent/species magically changing”
          “Darwinists have to offer then the paradigm is in deep trouble. ”

          essentially saying a well evidenced scientific theory is wrong when
          you can’t demonstrate even minimal competence with the simple things like a chemical gradient separated by a membrane allows an electric field.

          you really don’t understand the science nor seem prepared or interested in correcting this lack of basic understanding. i personally don’t get why you would pursue this discussion so persistently given that you don’t seem at all interested in learning about it’s details. the joy, the pleasure comes from learning new things, from reading fascinating articles and seeing how God hath wrought such marvelous mechanisms, on top of this we are allowed to share in their discovery. amazing. and you entirely miss it all! actually it’s kind of sad ;-)

          -=again you are trying to run before you learn how to crawl=-
          and you are content to sit there complaining that those who are running are doing it all wrong.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    There have been no “personal attacks” of any sort, Cdbren. Demonstrating that you do not know basic science and yet claim to be able to assess one of the most well-established and well-confirmed scientific theories is relevant. Showing that you ignore the Bible’s teaching about lying while claiming that your defense of your own egotistical imaginations are a defense of the Biblical God is relevant. Fortunately you have provided ample evidence so that all true seekers after truth, whether they are Christians or something else, can see you for what you are: a person whose very behavior undermines the Bible rather than supports it, and whose views seem plausible to him only because he does not know enough science to evaluate matters accurately, nor care to learn what he ought to in order to improve his understanding.

    You have shown yourself to be a liar and without a grasp of basic science. That is relevant, not as an attack on your person, but as evidence of your lack of any genuine knowledge or authority to speak credibly on these matters.

  • Anonymous

    Do I get an answer as to whether or not a new amino acid sequence 9providing the species did not already have the capability) is new genetic information in the genome? 

  • Anonymous

    rmWilliams: The point with the electrical field produced in embryo development is that the membranes contain channels that pump out ions and pump in ions creating a charge.

    Experiments in single-celled organisms indicate that membrane patterns are determined by pre-existing membranes, not by the DNA.

    Thus, although the molecular components of individual sodium-potassium
    channels may be encoded in DNA sequences, the three-dimensional
    arrangement of those channels — which determines the form of the
    endogenous electric field — constitutes an independent source of
    information in the developing embryo.

    • Anonymous

      googling is not comprehension.
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/not_in_the_gene054071.html 

      what does this mean:

      So although the molecular components of individual sodium-potassium channels may be encoded in DNA sequences, the three-dimensional arrangement of those channels — which determines the form of the endogenous electric field — constitutes an independent source of information in the developing embryo. ”

      and why is it fundamentally wrong?

      • Anonymous

        rmWilliams, what that means is the idea that natural selection and mutations drives Darwinian evolution hits a brick wall. 

        It’s just one small piece of evidence really though. The amount of time for change in just one complex feature in one species to a totally new feature would require more than 4.5 billion years. 

        “Hubert Yockey, a biophysicist and information theorist, has argued
        that the number of potential genetic codes is of the order of 1.40 x
        10^70. Yockey concedes the extremely conservative figure of 6.3 x 10^15
        seconds for the time available for the genetic code to evolve.”
         

      • Anonymous

        what does this mean:”So although the molecular components of individual sodium-potassium channels may be encoded in DNA sequences, the three-dimensional arrangement of those channels — which determines the form of the endogenous electric field — constitutes an independent source of information in the developing embryo. “and why is it fundamentally wrong? 

        cdbren:
        what that means is the idea that natural selection and mutations drives Darwinian evolution hits a brick wall. 

        i was hoping that you would demonstrate your desire to learn about your own links. to take the time and learn a bit about the science behind evolutionary science. it really is interesting. but you will never experience that beauty.

        because you don’t care about the science, all you are doing here is persistently pursuing a crusade against what you think is something threatening to your faith, sad. for in the long run, your refusal to engage with the science will be threatening to your sons’ faith. because you will pose a false dichotomy between your head-in-the-sand fingers-in-the-ears mantra chanting “no new information” faith and the world of science studying the universe God hath wrought. 

        and any intelligent sensitive inquirer will choose science. 
        i hope some of the lurkers will search out the information about how the ionphores are distributed on the cell membranes, neat stuff.

        • Anonymous

          I have no problems with real science and evolution is not threatening to me or religion in the least. 

      • Anonymous

        one of the common misconceptions i see at evolutionnews is their/his false analogy of dna to a blueprint. a blueprint, or today autocad files is a very specific set of specifications about how to build and what materials to use. dna isn’t anywhere near this specific. the more accurate analogy is to a cookbook recipe. a recipe gives you somewhat vague instructions to a process, it specifies amount and types like an autocad file but it really doesn’t specify placement or order in the same way.

        it was more obvious as i reread for the umpteenth time http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/not_in_the_gene054071.html
        which is about an excellent article at
        http://www.pnas.org/content/74/3/1115.full.pdf+html

        and i sat staring at the phrase
        “constitutes an independent source of information in the developing embryo”

        remembering both embryology and developmental classes i realize how important the female egg layout is; gradients, polarity, asymmetries and as the article shows ionphore distribution. if you think that dna is an autocad file then these items seem to conflict, ie independent source of information, but if your mental model is a recipe you see the egg like an omelet in the process of becoming. what order you add the ingredients even where on the frying pan you place them or the heat distribution in the metal matter to the final product. but none of these things are covered in the recipe, nor does the dna necessarily specify them, the history of that cell does. it’s a process.

        it appears that model do matter, and YECists seem to have lots of bad pseudo-science  models in their heads that put them into conflict with the science.

  • Anonymous

    Look at that. I spend a day going to a wedding and cdbren shows his dishonesty in flashy new colors, and still doesn’t understand ANE slavery.

    Anywhos, I found this fascinating documentary by NOVA on the Dover trial if anyone is interested in checked it out. Its called “Judgement Day” and can be found here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-404729062613200911

    Also, the complete transcript of the debate (which will be my evening reading of the day) can be found here: 

    http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm

    • Anonymous

      aaron, So now you think that a federal judge can settle scientific debates, and a court ruling has the ability to negate the evidence for design in nature?

      That is seriously funny. 

      For anyone interested in a serious rebuttal of the video “Judgement Day” can go here. http://www.judgingpbs.com/

      There is even a book that critiques the trial at: http://www.traipsingintoevolution.com/

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    So Cdbren, you won’t listen to a judge who had opportunity (indeed the obligation!) to listen to days of scientific testimony, but you apparently think that this matter of science can be settled by you as a commenter on a blog?

    I think “response” is the word you are looking for. A “rebuttal” has to involve more than spin and dismissal because one chooses to believe otherwise.

    The book Monkey Girl shows how ID proponents in Dover are documented as having been dishonest in much the way Cdbren is documented as having been dishonest here. And so his treatment of the Dover trial shows that the dishonesty is consistent and characteristic of this movement.

    • Anonymous

      Here is another great response and details of why the judge in the case is an activist and why it was an unfair trial.
      http://www.discovery.org/a/3135

      James, I would assume that since you “claim” to be a born again Christian that you would embrace the idea of intelligent design in nature. 

      Continuously throwing out accusations of dishonesty isn’t helping you at all and hopefully is showing what your true nature and agenda is. 

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Your dishonesty has been demonstrated, but since it is clear that evidence and honesty don’t matter to you, your reaction to this is no more surprising than your reaction to the evidence for evolution. Keep asserting your own beliefs, never admitting that God made you with the capacity for error and the need to learn.

    Being born again doesn’t lead everyone down the path of lies that you have chosen. It is possible to be born again and honest – indeed, I would like to hope that that is the norm rather than the exception. But I know that in fact it was my powerful experience of being born again that left me open to being deceived by young-earth creationists. I was ready to embrace a message that blamed scientists for conspiracy and evolution for the world’s ills. But the truth is, as the life-changing power of the Spirit and the words of the Bible both testify, that we human beings love to shift the blame. That, in fact, seems to be the point of the ending of the story in Genesis 3, more than anything else. Ironically, those who claim to be concerned to defend the authority of the Bible actually use blame shifting to a first couple or to evolution itself to avoid the penetrating spotlight that Genesis shines on us. It is I who am the problem, not something or someone else.

    The sooner you learn to take responsibility for your shortcomings and admit that you still might have things to learn, the better for your soul. Because currently you seem to be trying to defend the truthfulness of stories in the Bible as you understand them, but in the process to have become blind to their actual life-transforming message.

  • Anonymous

    Yes!!!! The judge was an “activist” who had “delusions of grandeur”! Bravo Discovery Institute! There is a reason why I stopped taking you seriously!

    I really think you should read the transcripts and watch the documentary, as they interview Michael Behe, talk about those pesky transitional fossils which don’t exist, and the bacteria flagellum and the argument of irreducible complexity. Actually cdbren, the Dover trial never happened. It was a made up story by the government to push their propaganda into other schools. The same thing they did with 9/11 and the moon landings.I suppose I will have to spend eternity in hell as well, as my born-again experience and baptism apparently count for nothing as I do not support dishonest charlatans in their unholy quest against science. James, I would like to schedule an appointment to interview you there, right after I get done with Ghandi, Pope John Paul II, and the Jesus Seminar :)

    • Anonymous

      after building a time machine, i’d like to visit alternative universes. the one where the IDists win dover is on my list to see. i’d expect they would be pushing the court decision and using the results everywhere, if they had won, crowing loudly for all to hear. sounds like you could rewrite “the fox and the sour grapes” parable using the IDists response to dover, but a “court case can’t decide science”…..

      • Anonymous

        re: after building a time machine, i’d like to visit alternative universes. the one where the IDists win dover is on my list to see. i’d expect they would be pushing the court decision and using the results everywhere, if they had won, crowing loudly for all to hear. sounds like you could rewrite “the fox and the sour grapes” parable using the IDists response to dover, but a “court case can’t decide science”…..

        No, what would have happened is we could all move forward with real science and have the freedom of exploring not only evolution theory but other theories as well. Openly and without hostility. 

        It’s time to stop treating Darwinian evolution theory as a religion.

        • Anonymous

          re:
          No, what would have happened is we could all move forward with real science and have the freedom of exploring not only evolution theory but other theories as well. Openly and without hostility.  

          real science is the science you agree with, even though you consistently refuse to even read and understand the science you yourself link to here as evidence.

          this “freedom to believe what is real science” is not only a rallying cry for the YECists, but their kissing cousins the climate change deniers, the anti-vaxxers,  the HIV is a western plot and assorted others who are scientifically challenged. it’s a cry that resonates with the individualistic, anti-elitist, democracy social milieu that dominates our culture and unfortunately dominates in the conservative churches with their often frontier congregationalist and baptist roots.

          feel free to believe what ever nonsense you desire, home school your kids to keep they away from the evolutionary boogie man, but that doesn’t change the world the least little bit. It is God’s Creation, the truly amazing thing is that we are able to think God’s thoughts after Him, that we have the ability to see the beauty and complexity of the world. And science is the tool to do this. can science be wrong, not only can be but is, often, but it’s closer to the truth out there than any imagination undisciplined by a scientific education can ever hope to be.

          science is a mind tool, filters against folly, a barrier to self deception and a way to think about this world. it has authority because it represents the best thinking humanity can muster. it is not a complete worldview but truncated, ET isn’t a religion but can be used to create one. methodological naturalism works but doesn’t imply philosophic naturalism is right. 

          but since you’ve obviously chosen not to engage with science in any substantial way, you don’t understand this. the right way to understand science is through the discipline of learning the specifics, for example, how ionphores are distributed on the surface of a cell, maintained there and create electric fields, something you link to but refuse to read. again it’s sad to see Christians act this way, allegiance to the Creator ought to be translated into love of learning how He created, rather than the vain speculations of an undisciplined mind.

          • Anonymous

            re: rmWilliams

            I am glad we agree. 

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Judge Jones is anything but an “activist judge” – I recommend that anyone who has heard that lie google him and read about his life. He is the sort of person one might expect to sympathize with ID. But he is an honest individual and the trial demonstrated not only the “breathtaking inanity” of the ID supporters but their dishonesty (keywords: cdesign proponentsists – if you aren’t familiar with that phrase, look it up, because it is actually evidence of a transitional form, in a textbook promoting creationism, er, I mean, Intelligent Design).

  • Anonymous

    In 2006, South Carolina adopted a standard requiring students to
    “Summarize ways that scientists use data from a variety of sources to
    investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.”

    In 2006, Mississippi passed a law holding that “No local school
    board, school superintendent or school principal shall prohibit a public
    school classroom teacher from discussing and answering questions from
    individual students on the origin of life.”

    In 2008, Louisiana required passed a policy requiring that Louisiana
    schools shall “create and foster an environment…that promotes
    critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective
    discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not
    limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human
    cloning.”

    In 2009, Texas adopted science standards that require students to
    “analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations … including
    examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific
    explanations so as to encourage critical thinking,” and also “analyze
    and evaluate” core evolutionary claims, such as “common ancestry,”
    “natural selection,” and “mutation.”

  • Anonymous

    I have been reading through the transcripts of the trial, and I have to say that Kenneth Miller’s testimony is amazing. Precise, scientific, yet easy to understand. I found it interesting as I read it that Miller mentioned the astonishing fast rate of biological research, so much so that it makes his textbook written in 1994 completely out of date. Keep this in mind when cdbren quotes articles he has no understanding about, especially if they are from AIG’s website. I have caught them using data as old as the 1920′s (I believe this was one of the coral growth rate articles). Now using dated material is fine if it is still accurate, but if there are more recent development on the field, one would think scientists would consult these as well. This is not how creation “science” operates. Their method is to find some study, doesn’t matter when or by who, and try to make it agree with their conclusion. This is yet another example of why creationists don’t publish in peer reviewed journals.

    Also, cdbren, you might think about looking up the meaning to “critical thinking” and “theory”.
    The reason that ID is not taught as an alternative theory to ET is the same reason that Demonic possession theory is not taught as an alterntative theory to the germ theory of disease.

    Just out of curiosity, has anyone ever though about pointing out to fundies that, after all, penal substitution is “just a theory”?
    I think everyone might be interested in the following article on how new information evolves in the genome. It’s quite technical and I am still looking up terms and rereading it, but it is pretty cool and the diagrams help you get the gist of it: http://medicine.tums.ac.ir/fa/Users/Javad_TavakoliBazzaz/Genetic%20Changes/Genetic%20Change/The%20origin%20of%20new%20genes.pdf

  • Anonymous

    Also, cdbren, theories are TESTABLE. Can you explain to me how ID/creationism is in any way testable?

    • Anonymous

      Re: Also, cdbren, theories are TESTABLE. Can you explain to me how ID is in anyway testable?

      Consistent

      Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam’s Razor)

      Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively)

      Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)

      Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments

      Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)

      Progressive (refines previous theories)

      Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

      • Anonymous

        Cdbren, I’m glad you have the ability to google and copy and paste. Now you need to show me how ID has these characteristics.

        Again, you really should read the Dover trial transcripts and the documentary. They are really, really, good.

      • Anonymous

        quote:
        The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that “creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.”[132] The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[n 25][69][n 13] Others in the scientific community have concurred,[n 26] and some have called it junk science.[n 27][133] For a theory to qualify as scientific,[n 28][134][n 29] 
        it is expected to be:
        Consistent
        Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam’s Razor)
        Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively)
        Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
        Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
        Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
        Progressive (refines previous theories)
        Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

        For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency,[135] violates the principle of parsimony,[n 30] is not scientifically useful,[n 31] is not falsifiable,[n 32] is not empirically testable,[n 33] and is not correctable, dynamic, provisional or progressive.[n 34][n 35][n 36]

        from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

         if you read the whole section, you will see that ID does NOT meet the criteria.

        footnote 29 in particular

        quote:
        ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). , 4:
        whether ID is science. The ruling discusses central aspects of expectations in the scientific community that a scientific theory be testable, dynamic, correctible, progressive, based upon multiple observations, and provisional, 

        refers to the dover trial

        which came to the conclusion that ID does NOT meet these criteria.

        so once again cdbren neither reads nor understands what he is linking to.

        • Anonymous

          Re: if you read the whole section, you will see that ID does NOT meet the criteria. 

          No, people that don’t want Darwinian Evolution challenged said ID does not meet the criteria. ID does meet the criteria. If ID does not then evolution theory does not as they are looking at and testing and seeing results from the exact same areas. 

          Also, ID theory doesn’t have a problem with junk DNA. They know it has a purpose. I believe it was Darwinians that predicted there should be lots of junk DNA in the genetic code according to their way of thinking. 

          • http://www.rethinkingao.com Mike Beidler

            Hmmmm.  So, cdbren, just what can ID “theory” predict?

          • Anonymous

            re:
             ID does meet the criteria. 

            then, simply as a matter of proper discourse and argument, you should have linked to an article that showed how ID met those criteria, rather then cutting the criteria out of a wiki article that said that ID did not do so, thus altering the very point of that section of the wiki article on ID.

            cut and paste magic
            “And Judas went and hanged himself” and “go ye and do likewise”.
            from: “how to use your Bible” @ http://www.tektonics.org/uz/useguide.html

  • Anonymous

    cdbren, here is an example Miller gave during the dover trial that illustrates how ET makes testable predictions. The human genome has 23 pairs of chromosomes. Apes have 24. If evolution is true in that we share a common ancestry with apes, then it makes sense that we would find evidence in the human genome that a fusing of chromosomes has occurred. Well, scientists discovered that chromosome number 2 shows indications of being fused together. 

  • Anonymous

    Intelligent design is a scientific theory which has its roots in
    information theory and observations about intelligent action.
    Intelligent design theory makes inferences based upon observations about
    the types of complexity that can be produced by the action of
    intelligent agents vs. the types of information that can be produced
    through purely natural processes to infer that life was designed by an
    intelligence or multiple intelligences. It makes no statements about
    the identity of the intelligent designer(s), but merely says that
    intelligent action was involved at some points with the origins of
    various aspects of biological life.

    Intelligent design begins with observations about the types of
    information that we can observe produced by intelligent agents in the
    real world. Even the atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins says that
    intuitively, “[b]iology is the study of complicated things that give the
    appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”1 Dawkins
    would say that natural selection is what actually did the “designing,”
    however intelligent design theorist Stephen C. Meyer rightly notes that,
    “[i]ndeed, in all cases where we know the causal origin of ‘high
    information content,’ experience has shown that intelligent design
    played a causal role.”3 Thus, like any true scientific theory, intelligent design theory begins with empirical observations from the natural world. 

    In all of this, there have been no mentions of God, religion, or
    adherence to any religious text but rather we use observations about how
    intelligent design works in the present to look at aspects of the
    natural world to see if they are designed. Intelligent design theory is
    based solely upon applying observations about intelligent action and
    principles of information theory to the construction of biological
    systems, and nothing more. There is nothing mystical, supernatural,
    religious, or non-scientific about intelligent design theory. In its
    current form, intelligent design theory also can say nothing about the
    designer other than that the designer was intelligent. Whether you agree
    with the methodology of intelligent design theory or not, you have to
    agree with one thing: it has a scientific basis. 

    http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/832  

    • Anonymous

      the big problem is that the closer you look at living things the less they look designed at all, let alone intelligently. life appears evolved, make shift, make do, use what is available, simply put-bricolage.

      • Anonymous

        Re: “the big problem is that the closer you look at living things the less they look designed at all, let alone intelligently. life appears evolved, make shift, make do, use what is available, simply put-bricolage.”

        Then if that is your view there is not enough time, according to science and leading mathematicians, in 4.5 billion years for one organism to evolve new complex features, let alone thousands. Your view also goes against the latest information that the cell, DNA, etc. is extremely complex. What you stated waters the science of biology down to something it is not.

        Your view does not explain the construction and miracle of life from the womb. 

        • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

          That makes no sense whatsoever, but happy new year anyway.

          • Anonymous

            Happy New Year to you too, James. And aaron and rmWilliams, and Ian. 

        • Anonymous

          re:
          Your view does not explain the construction and miracle of life from the womb. 

          at least half of human embryos fail 
          gastrulation . perhaps as high as 80%

          “It is not birth, marriage, or death, but gastrulation, which is truly the most important time in your life.”            Lewis Wolpert (1986) 

          i had an extraordinary dev-bio prof that put it something like this: chill out about your grades, you’ve already passed your most important mid-term–gastrulation

          then there is the race between the human skull circumference and the female pelvic girdle which results in human beings needing to be born several months premature, why? because we walk upright.

          a crucial protein to unite mother and child is a co-opted HERV.

          like i said, the more you understand the details the more it looks like … bricolage.

          re:
          Your view also goes against the latest information that the cell, DNA, etc. is extremely complex 

          it’s complexity is the same as a rube goldberg apparatus, not the kind of complexity we see in human designed buildings or cars or computer programs. it never swaps completed working debugged modules but reinvents the wheel not once but dozens of times, each one with it’s own weakness and strengths. like i said, to more you look at the details the more it looks like bricolage

  • Anonymous

    Here is an example where the word “evolution” is thrown around loosely. Yet no evolution has taken place. A black tipped shark mates with a black tipped shark and makes a black tipped shark. No new genetic information was generated, just combined by mating. 

    This has also happened very fast where some have derided me with “you describe speciation off Noah’s ark as many times faster than it is supposed to work”. Yet they do call it “evolution” in the article. Proof that species can adapt and change within their species very rapidly. 

    http://news.yahoo.com/world-first-hybrid-shark-found-off-australia-070347608.html

    • Anonymous

      you would do yourself a great favor if you eliminated the erroneous ideas of information and genetics from the IDists out of your head. it is deeply confusing you and making your reading of the science so biased as to be unrecognizable. look at the science and what it means first, applying information theory to genetics is imho, very high level and very difficult science. ID has it all wrong.

      • Anonymous

        Re: “you would do yourself a great favor if you eliminated the erroneous ideas of information and genetics from the IDists out of your head. it is deeply confusing you and making your reading of the science so biased as to be unrecognizable. look at the science and what it means first, applying information theory to genetics is imho, very high level and very difficult science. ID has it all wrong.”

        Not sure what you are trying to say here as you present no facts, just accusations. 

        Anyway, why should I take the notion of information and genetics out of my head? I don’t need a degree in anything to see that the genetic information to place nerves, blood vessels, muscles, skin, etc. where it is supposed to go for a foot or a hand or a fin is extremely complex. (Not brick and mortar). 

        What is your take on the article? They say evolution is happening when only two similar species are mating. This is akin to mating a German Shepherd with a Golden Retriever. Yet that does not make the news and is not called evolution. It is simply natural selection acting on traits already present in the genetics. (Acting very fast by the way).

        Why not use the word speciation or natural selection in the article instead of evolution? As that is more scientifically accurate by a long shot?  

        • Anonymous

          re:
           No new genetic information was generated, just combined by mating. 

          you read the article. at what level of information was “no new genetic information generated” ??
          the dna backbone, the chromosome with methylation and differential histone binding(plus folding etc)? or transcribed mRNA or processed mRNS or proteins produced?

          what exactly do you mean by information in the genome?

          do you see the problem with informational content of the genome? at what level, exactly where? they are different.

          • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

            Rmwilliamjr’s comments have been full of facts and links to detailed articles. Pretending otherwise doesn’t fool anyone, except perhaps yourself.

            • Anonymous

              re: Rmwilliamjr’s comments have been full of facts and links to detailed articles. Pretending otherwise doesn’t fool anyone, except perhaps yourself.

              James, I think you should post continuously on rmwilliam’s mistake of not knowing that both types of black tipped sharks belong to the same species and misnaming the domesticated dog species. 

              I mean you should at least stay consistent and not single out one person…..

              • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                I singled you out because you botched basic science, tried to cover it up, and lied about ever having made the error. If you are happy to acknowledge that you are capable of being wrong about science, even very basic science, then I am happy to let the matter drop. But it is still an issue that you make basic errors and yet seem to think that you are in a position to pontificate on scientific matters when all you are really doing is copying and pasting the erroneous claims of others.

                Not being certain which sharks are a single species is not the same sort of error, since species blend from one into another. Sometimes related organisms are categorized as a single species, and sometimes as two, precisely because the delineation is often arbitrary, as fits with evolutionary biology but not the claims of pseudoscientific creationists.

              • Anonymous

                re:
                The Common Blacktip shark and Australian Blacktip shark are both a species of requiem shark, family Carcharhinida.

                re: I think you should post continuously on rmwilliam’s mistake of not knowing that both types of black tipped sharks belong to the same species and misnaming the domesticated dog species. 

                re:I mean you should at least stay consistent and not single out one person….. re:(Also, just to clarify, domestic dog breeds are descended from a form of gray wolf and are classified as Canis lupus familiaris species.) 

                both canis lupus familiaris and canis familiaris are proper
                http://www.uniprot.org/taxonomy/9615 
                btw did you know the latin for domesticated dog without looking it up? 
                the lupus has been added since i was in school.

                The Australian blacktip shark (Carcharhinus tilstoni) is a species of requiem shark, 
                family Carcharhinidae, endemic to northern and eastern Australia.  

                Carcharhinus tilstoni = Australian blacktip shark
                common blacktip shark, Carcharhinus limbatus 

                they are different species within the family
                Requiem sharks are a family, Carcharhinidae, of sharks in the order Carcharhiniformes, containing migratory, live-bearing sharks of warm seas (sometimes of brackish or fresh water) such as the tiger shark, the blue shark, the bull shark, and the milk shark. 

                species-genus-family-order

                quotes from various wiki pages

                unless i missed something, i didn’t make a mistake. although i often do, worth double checking.

                • Anonymous

                  i went googling to see when lupus was added
                  quote:”Then in 1982, J. H. Honacki and his colleagues suggested that Linneaus’s name for the dog be changed to Canis lupus familiaris to reflect its evolutionary descent. Not only did they think that the dog is descended from the wolf, but given its similarities to the wolf, they were suggesting that the dog is not a distinct species, but rather a subspecies of the wolf. ” from: http://sulfide.deviantart.com/art/Canis-lupus-soupus-201441907there is a surprising dispute over the name change. lots of places are using canis familiaris and justifying it…..

                  in any case, it doesn’t appear to be an error. if it is, it’s minor and in lots of good company.

                  • Anonymous

                    rmwilliams, I was referring to the updated scientific name for “dog” as you have explained by the google info. I use Wiki a lot and that is the name they have there on two different pages and it is mostly up to date. 

                    As far as the sharks, I would argue that they are not separate species but that they are a subspecies. 

                    My argument isn’t with what is happening genetically between the species. It is with the loosely used word “evolution” and that this sort of natural selection, for use of a better word, can happen fast as with the animal kinds that exited the ark. 

                    You seem to want to say that natural selection, breeding of dogs, or breeding within a similar species is some sort of Darwinian evolution when it is not. 

                    Do you really believe that all species go back to a simpler common ancestor? That nature, in only this instance, is running backwards? 

                    God created animal kinds with all available information so they could adapt to the changing environments after the flood and produce what we see today. It goes from a large amount of genetic information to less. Not the other way around which is contrary to science and how laws of nature work.

                    • Anonymous

                      re:
                      God created animal kinds with all available information so they could adapt to the changing environments after the flood and produce what we see today. It goes from a large amount of genetic information to less. Not the other way around which is contrary to science and how laws of nature work. 

                      top down thinking, armchair philosophy, like the classic Greeks who wanted to argue the world from 1st principles without getting their hands dirty with experimentation.

                      you are convinced by your interpretation of Scripture that the world must be a certain way and therefore life must conform to these a priori principles. you identify your interpretation so closely with the text that the principle of inerrancy rubs off onto it. people read the Bible, what they think it says to them it not the same thing as the text itself, everyone can be and often are wrong about what the Bible means.

                      the sole corrective measure in Scriptural interpretation in an appeal to the authority in a particular interpretative community. but if we think seriously about the 2 books of God metaphor, we do have the facts of the world to appeal to. the world is not flat, the earth revolves around the sun, the moon reflects light it is not an independent source. science rightfully corrects the erroneous worldview of the writers of the Bible.

                      in order to see how God has created we need to actually look at the world. is there evidence of a recent Noahic flood? no, geology dispelled that notion 200 years ago. did God create kinds and allow they to wind down and fill the earth from the ark? no, biogeography dispelled that notion 150 years ago. Australia and thousands of islands disproved that notion as the Europeans went forth and “discovered” this world.

                      how does the world work? we have to look at it to find out. there is nothing in Scripture about the physical world that was not the common thinking of that time, God did not see fit to put easter eggs into the Bible that would pop out at the appropriate level of knowledge and prove the Bible divine, however convenient that might be.

                      the problem with deriving your science from the ancient worldview used in the Bible is that anyone committed to seeing the world rightly will reject that physical science. and since you tie the truthfulness of Scripture to it, they logically will reject it all. YECists, flat earthers, geocentrics, etc create atheists, by seemingly forcing people to choose a package that they know contains false ideas. 

                      there was no universal noahaic flood, there is no scientific definition of kinds, life does not appear to be designed, it looks like … bricolage, a rube goldberg apparatus that reinvents the eye over and over again not from scratch but from whatever is on hand in a particular lineage, it doesn’t swap debugged working modules between branches of the tree of life. it evolves.

                      so what does this do to our interpretations of adam and eve? good question, as YECism continues it’s dominance in the conservative churches there will be fewer people willing or able to think about it. 

                       

                    • Anonymous

                      rmwlliams, …um, no. The conclusions about how nature works are based on scientific evidence and observations. 

                      If you accuse me of having a presupposition when viewing the evidence then evolutionists have one too. You and others here were constantly saying that was not so yet you now say it is so. Which is it? Does the evidence come with information tags or speak out or is it human scientists that interpret that evidence?

                      I don’t derive my science from an ancient worldview. (The bible does not teach a flat earth, that the sun revolves around the earth or that the moon is an independent light source.) 

                      All the things you say have been disproven have not been. They have tried to be explained away which is different than disproving something.

                      You say YEC contains false ideas. I say ET contains false ideas. I say you chose a package that contains false ideas. We could go back and forth all day. Lets try to stay focused on the evidence and not personal evaluations.

                      You are selectively ignoring all the scientific evidence that speaks against evolution and long ages.  

                    • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      Cdbren, you seem to genuinely believe that the stuff you copy and paste is “scientific evidence that speaks against evolution and long ages.” It’s not, and it is our desire to help you understand why it isn’t that has led us to urge you, time and again, to read books about mainstream science so as to perhaps help you understand. The fact that something is couched in scientific-sounding language or peppered with scientific terminology doesn’t make it scientific. 

                    • Anonymous

                      James, yet “scientific sounding language and peppered with scientific sounding terminology” is exactly the kind of behavior evolutionists engage in. As evident in the article about the black tipped sharks mating to produce a black tipped shark. 

                      As someone stated on here, if that can be labeled “evolution” then that would be “evolution running many times faster than it is capable of”. 

                      So then you would have to admit that species can diversify, within their species, very quickly or call out the article on the black tipped sharks as erroneous. Which will it be?

                    • Anonymous

                      re:
                       (The bible does not teach a flat earth, that the sun revolves around the earth or that the moon is an independent light source.)  

                      so the writers of genesis knew that the world was spherical, the earth revolved around the sun and that the moon reflected the sun’s light?

                      re:
                      You are selectively ignoring all the scientific evidence that speaks against evolution and long ages. 

                      i do not believe i have ignored anything, i am unaware of any scientific challenges to evolutionary theory that have any merit or warrant further research. afaik, i have looked at enough YECist science and found it unconvincing and i find no need to do further research until something new comes along.

                    • Anonymous

                      rmwilliams, the writers of the OT were led by the holy spirit to write so what they personally thought about the world is irrelevant and nearly impossible to know. 

                      You should explore ID science as well. So should I use your reasoning to reject secular scientists claims about common descent evolution simply because I personally find it without merit and not warranting further research? I don’t think I should since that approach is both unscientific and illogical. 

                    • Anonymous

                      re:
                      You should explore ID science as well. 

                      ID is YEC v2.0, i’ve read the major books as my public library gets them, it isn’t a very difficult literature, no real data, no body of knowledge to master like mobio or even epistemology, fields i’ve studied for decades without even making a dent in the fundamentals. it’s-ID/YEC vacuous and dismissive as empty of content and well-refuted by the mobio i’m familiar with. i’ve better things to read. there’s nothing there worth the time to study.

                    • Anonymous

                      If you think ID is correct (i.e., “well-substantiated”), then it will
                      qualify as a scientific theory. If you don’t think it’s correct, then
                      you won’t think it’s well substantiated, and ID won’t qualify as a
                      theory. In practice, this element thus measures subjective questions
                      about what people believe about an idea rather than posing objective
                      questions about the basic nature of the idea being considered. 

                      Rather than be trapped by your own opinion, it would be better to open your mind and explore how ID is supported by a vast body of evidence ranging from physics and
                      cosmology to biochemistry to animal biology to systems biology to
                      epigenetics and paleontology.

                       ID incorporates the known laws and constants of the universe
                      and ties them together in a unified theory to explain why they are
                      coordinated to produce life-friendly physical parameters.

                      ID incorporates many known facts about DNA sequences about and
                      tested hypotheses showing they are finely tuned to perform biological
                      functions.

                      ID incorporates a myriad of tested hypotheses about the
                      geologically abrupt appearance of body plans in the fossil record, as
                      well as numerous facts from biochemistry and animal biology regarding
                      the kind and amount of integrated information necessary to coordinate
                      new types of proteins, cell types, tissues, and organs into new
                      functional body plans.

                      ID incorporates many tested hypotheses about the presence of
                      irreducible complexity in biological systems, evidenced by genetic
                      knockout experiments which have shown that irreducible complexity is a
                      real phenomenon.

                      ID does all of this by proposing new laws such as the law of
                      conservation of information, new principles about the causes of high
                      CSI, new methods of measuring functional information and complexity, and
                      new hypotheses about the ubiquity of fine-tuning throughout both
                      cosmology and biology.

                    • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      And again, if you look at whether proponents of Intelligent Design a doing research and publishing the results, you can determine fairly clearly whether ID is well substantiated.

                      ID makes claims about evidence and research, but that is not the same as actually providing evidence or doing research. And it is precisely because there are people like you who cannot tell the difference that they continue to get away with their scam.

                    • Anonymous

                      James. I believe the Discovery Institute is doing research daily and publishing results. Along with other institutes. I think they have started one up in the U.K. as well. 

                    • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      If you believe that, Cdbren, then you are very gullible indeed.

                    • Anonymous

                      re:
                       it would be better to open your mind and explore how ID is supported by a vast body of evidence ranging from physics and cosmology to biochemistry to animal biology to systems biology to epigenetics and paleontology. 

                      nonsense.

                      one reason to pursue online discussions rather than just read books, is to sense what people really think important and to see how people internalize ideas.

                      i am always amazed at how certain YECists are. in fact my blog is titled: how are some more certain of everything than i am of anything?

                      you have written 100′s of postings in a handful of threads here on J.McG’s blog, all with the same tone of absolute confidence and certainty of correctness. yet each time i try to get a straight answer out of you about a detail, you fail. i’m convinced you neither do read the appropriate science, nor in fact do you have the required background to read the scientific linkages you yourself post as evidence for your assertions. i waited a week to see the one word-membrane, it never came from your mind.

                      confidence, sincerity, certainty, i count them as positive qualities except when they’re in the service of willful ignorance, except when they attempt to cover a lack of basic knowledge.

                      my grad advisor had a neat motto:
                      everyone has a right to their opinion, but no one has a right to demand that i take them seriously unless they have done their homework.

                      you, cdbren, simply have not done your homework, and it is evident in your postings. ID isn’t supported by anything but wishful thinking, the god of the gaps reasoning and an inborn human capacity to anthropomorphize the natural world, not your vast body of….

                      life does not appear designed, it looks like a rube goldberg apparatus … … bricolage.

                    • Anonymous

                      re:
                      (The bible does not teach a flat earth, that the sun revolves around the earth or that the moon is an independent light source.)   

                      just to clean up a hanging chad.

                      matt 4:8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.

                      only makes sense in a flat earth worldview.

                      jos 10:13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

                      only makes sense in a geocentric worldview

                      gen 1 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.

                      only makes sense if the sun and moon are sources of light, not that the moon reflects the suns light

                      there are lots more evidence, whole books were written defending flat earth from pagan spherical and geocentricism as God’s own way to put man in the center. there are no verses even hinting that the true condition is otherwise, than flat geocentric, moon as light source. and that is just the astronomy problems.

                    • Anonymous

                      rmwilliams, you’ve never looked up the original Hebrew to help make it clearer for you? I am sorry that the Bible does not state up to date scientific terminology and ideas that you want it to say and that you want to treat it as a science book. 

                      I am sorry that you can’t discern “smaller, luminous body” as being the moon we see at night.

                      I am sorry you can’t believe the proposed creator of time can stop time for a day, except for a group of fighters. 

                      I am sorry that you can’t understand that even if the earth was flat you could not see all the kingdoms of earth and their splendor from a high mountain or understand that satan is a spiritual being. 

                      I suppose a virgin birth and God coming to Earth to die for those that would accept him and then coming back from the dead would be equally confusing to you?

                    • Anonymous

                      re:
                       I am sorry that the Bible does not state up to date scientific terminology and ideas that you want it to say and that you want to treat it as a science book. 

                      i don’t want for it to say any modern science, it’s my desire to listen to what it says, as it spoke to it’s original hearers, not to my time.

                      re:
                      I suppose a virgin birth and God coming to Earth to die for those that would accept him and then coming back from the dead would be equally confusing to you? 

                      i’m not particularly confused, except for the part about being awe-struck at times by the immensity of it all. i’m an orthodox Christian who has belonged to a conservative church, testified before the elders and confessed my faith before the congregation for nearly 40 years. 

                      it always surprises me that YECists can not imagine the faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior separated from their most cherished ideals of a young earth, a world wide flood, a tower with the entire world’s population working on it, and nearly always restore to challenging the faith of their opponents. these are adiaphora, yet YECists are so attached to these interpretations of Gen 1-11 to basically use them as the first criteria to separate them from us.

                    • Anonymous

                      rmwilliams, it should not amaze you that the exact same scriptures you attest to put your faith in as truth specifically state that Jesus accepted all of Moses writings as true and historical. That includes creation, the flood, Noah, the tower of Babel where God confused the languages, etc. 

                      For how do you accept Jesus’ words if you don’t accept Moses’ words? 

                    • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      Where does any NT author say that Jesus accepted as historical the entirety of Moses’ writings? What sense does it even say to call legislation “historical”? And why do you accept the Gospel authors’ varied depictions of Jesus’ words, apparently including the Gospel of John’s very stylistically and terminologically different one, as though they are actually Jesus’ words?

                      It seems that your faith is in the church’s Bible rather than in God.

                    • Anonymous

                      James, how are they not Jesus’ words? Is Jesus God and can God not preserve something as simple as a spoken sentence? Or a record of what he wants us to know? 

                      My faith is in the Bible and God.

                    • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      Are you saying that God could not create in an instant rather than in six days? I thought the question was what we have reason to believe that God did, not what it is within God’s power to do. An omnitent God can create in an instant, or six days, or make a universe capable of bringing forth living things over billions of years. An omnipotent God may give inerrant Scripture, or realize the penchant of humans to idolatrize such writings and refrain from doing so, in order to spur us to maturity and responsibility. What God could in theory have done is a nonsensical question if asked about an omnipotent God. The question is what you have evidence that he did or did not do.

                    • Anonymous

                      James, that is where the bible comes in. God revealed himself to people as well as coming to earth and becoming a man. The answers to all your questions you listed can be answered with a dose of common sense and logic…..and/or a simple reading of the scriptures…..and/or the evidence of an explosion of complex fully formed creatures in the fossil layers, evidence of a world wide flood all around us, evidence of fine tuning in the universe, the Earth, the sun, and life. The complex design in life that could not come from “evolution” as you believe it. 

                      Everything we can see, test and observe points to the bible as being true. I am sorry you can’t see that or refuse to see it.

                    • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      I know you really believe that all the evidence points towards ID, creationism, and your interpretation of the Bible being true. But you can only cling to that belief by deciding in advance that no evidence of any sort could ever contradict that belief.

                      Alas, even if God didn’t give an inerrant Bible knowing it would lead people into foolish fundamentalism, that doesn’t stop people from making the Bible in their own desired image even so.

                    • Anonymous

                      re:
                      It seems that your faith is in the church’s Bible rather than in God 

                      i think a big problem with evangelicals/fundamentalist/whatever label is that they do not understand that the church creates the Scriptures and supplies the interpretative community to understand it. unlike Islam which has the Quran eternally co-existent with Allah, the Christian Scriptures are written in a specific time and place, collected in a specific time and place , read in a specific time and place. they are the finger pointing at the moon, it is the nature of God they disclose that is important, the moon. but the fundamentalist confuse the finger with the moon, concentrating on the words they seem to miss the bigger picture. sad. 

                      and in tying their anti-science YECism so closely, essentially saying, as we have seen here, that you can not be a true/real/their kind of Christian unless you believe this non-sense. they make it doubly difficult to modern science saturated people to even think that a moon is possible let alone see the finger pointing at it. i think it is an unnecessary stumbling block to faith myself. but that’s just me.

                    • Anonymous

                      rmwilliams, what nonsense are you speaking of? God’s word? 

                      I am frankly confused at your double standard language. You believe in God yet you don’t believe the bible, which contains those very words you espouse to have faith in, that you don’t really believe….. 

                    • Anonymous

                      re:
                      You believe in God yet you don’t believe the bible, which contains those very words you espouse to have faith in, that you don’t really believe….. 

                      more evidence of the mindset that unless you believe as i do that you can not be the right kind of/true/real Christian. the radical dichotomy, either my way or the highway. the same thing in YEC, in KJV-only, in the abortion debate, in the gay rights debate. it’s a constant no true scotsman would….

                      quote:
                      I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said “Stop! don’t do it!” “Why shouldn’t I?” he said. I said, “Well, there’s so much to live for!” He said, “Like what?” I said, “Well…are you religious or atheist?” He said, “Religious.” I said, “Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?” He said, “Christian.” I said, “Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?” He said, “Baptist!” I said,”Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?” He said, “Baptist church of god!” I said, “Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?” He said,”Reformed Baptist church of god!” I said, “Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?” He said, “Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!” I said, “Die, heretic scum”, and pushed him off.  

                    • Anonymous

                      re, rmwilliams: “more evidence of the mindset that unless you believe as i do that you can not be the right kind of/true/real Christian. the radical dichotomy, either my way or the highway. the same thing in YEC, in KJV-only, in the abortion debate, in the gay rights debate. it’s a constant no true scotsman would….”

                      I am not saying that at all. The bible is quite clear on a lot of things. I think you are missing a lot. I understand many passages speak different things to different people but that does not detract from fundamental, clear truths.

                      I just can’t figure out how you don’t believe some parts, yet believe other parts. I just skimmed through the words in red in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and see many references to the teachings of Moses and that Jesus confirmed the writings as true. 

                      If you say that was inserted by the writers (and somehow God allowed it to be there) then they could have easily inserted anything else. It makes your faith in Jesus, eternal life, heaven of no effect. It is illogical and inconsistent. 

                      It’s as if you have dug out the foundation of your house and now have nothing concrete to hold it up. Yet you try to stand proudly inside it.

                    • Anonymous

                      re:
                      For how do you accept Jesus’ words if you don’t accept Moses’ words? 

                      we do not have Jesus’ very words any more than we have Moses’s. 

                      the NT was written long after the events, they are not Jesus’ words but what the writers remembered about events 50 years before. did Jesus believe the first 5 books were written by Moses? i don’t know, what i know is the gospel writer’s believed he did, thus confirming their 1stC hellenized jewish theology about the origin of those books as they read their LXX.

                      are the Gospels a newspaper man’s reportage of the events, is Genesis like Dragnet “just the facts”. no, the whole genre of modern history is itself modern, dating from the 16thC. like Luther’s preference for the literal, history was analysis and meaning and mythos* mixed up with facts before the rise of modern scholarship and printing.

                      again you tie your interpretation so closely to the text itself that you can not imagine anyone believing anything differently. yet your ideas are a small part of the breath of interpretation both in time and space. your understanding of church history is like your understanding of science, badly truncated, you don’t know how augustine creates original sin and a physical genetic adam and eve in latin after the eastern orthodox begin to split from the western church and therefore the whole heated discussion of historical adam/eve is irrelevant to them. for example.

                      the world and the church is much bigger than the few modern american denominations that make YECism, literalness, etc such an important part of their theology.

                      *see karen armstrong’s distinction of logos and mythos

                    • Anonymous

                      rmwilliams, so what you are saying is that the God of the bible is not powerful enough to preserve some simple writings about himself? That he allowed them to be corrupted and cause this kind of dividing debate we are having? 

                    • Anonymous

                      re:
                      so what you are saying is that the God of the bible is not powerful enough to preserve some simple writings about himself? That he allowed them to be corrupted and cause this kind of dividing debate we are having? 

                      you are arguing here, like you argue the science. life must be designed therefore look at the science and see design. no, look at the data, try to leave these big principles like is God powerful enough to create a rock he can’t lift aside for a moment and read the text. 

                      what does the Bible claim about itself? what is the history of the text? what is the history of the various interpretative communities that have read it and those that continue to read it? look at the data, master the history of it, understand the origins of your interpretative community, the history of your ideals. then read the text again.

                      an infallible, inerrant Scripture is a hypothesis, it has a history. read about it, see how it develops and why. see it’s origin and the battles it’s supporters were involved in. then read the text again.

                      each time you do these iterations, you should change a little bit, your interpretation should reflect a more nuanced, wider, more inclusive view of the world, of history, of the text. each time you should be more aware that it is a finger pointing to the moon, not the moon itself. it is God, the Creator and sustainer of life that is its focus, not itself. if you concentrate on the finger, thinking it the important part of the equation you are going to miss seeing the moon it is pointing to.

                      then read the text again. like me, you are probably still wrong in much you believe. it is my awareness of being in error that grows with each iteration more than anything else.

                    • Anonymous
          • Anonymous

            re:
             No new genetic information was generated, just combined by mating.  

            getting back to the main issue. ID with it’s accent on information and it’s mantra of “no new information” is confusing and misleading people reading the science.

            there are least 3 levels to the discussion: the genome, the various RNAs, and the proteome.

            when you read the article, see hybrids between species are involved, i think “hybrid vigor”. now you apparently minimize the effects by thinking ” just combined by mating”. but what does mating do? what are the proteomic effects of hybrid mating, what can be happening in the proteome to enable them to survive a wider range of temps? it is these questions that are inhibited in the mind grasping onto ID principles rather than trying first to read and understand the science.

            why do chromosomes recombine and cross over? what do they gain? why do hybrids have a wider range of all kinds of qualities than their parents ie hybrid vigor? what does this have to do with dissassortive mating? these are the question that jumping to “no new information” early in your reading inhibits.

            that’s all i’m saying, you are doing yourself a disservice by using ID principles to read the science.  

        • Anonymous

          re:
          This is akin to mating a German Shepherd with a Golden Retriever. 

          no, these are both canis familiaris. the sharks are different species.
          the point is that the hybridization is taking place as a response to increasing water temp. or better said as, more hybrids are surviving because they can deal with the higher temps, ie hybrids are more fit in increasing temp environment.

          • Anonymous

            re: re: This is akin to mating a German Shepherd with a Golden Retriever. 

            “no, these are both canis familiaris. the sharks are different species.the point is that the hybridization is taking place as a response to increasing water temp. or better said as, more hybrids are surviving because they can deal with the higher temps, ie hybrids are more fit in increasing temp environment.”
            ——————
            The Common Blacktip shark and Australian Blacktip shark are both a species of requiem shark, family Carcharhinida.

            ???

            (Also, just to clarify, domestic dog breeds are descended from a form of gray wolf and are classified as Canis lupus familiaris species.)

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    There we have the surest sign that someone is interested in getting at the truth: an awareness of their own fallibility. Thank you, RMWilliams, for illustrating the capacity for being at least usually right and yet appropriately humble. I hope that Cdbren at some point in his life will understand just how offensive his combination of being smug and wrong is.

    • Anonymous

      re: There we have the surest sign that someone is interested in getting at the truth: an awareness of their own fallibility. Thank you, RMWilliams, for illustrating the capacity for being at least usually right and yet appropriately humble. I hope that Cdbren at some point in his life will understand just how offensive his combination of being smug and wrong is.

      James, I explained my mistake before. I have explained that I am not a scientist or that I have any degrees in science. Chalk it up to being tired that day as well. Of course you won’t afford me the same courtesy because you are blinded by your biased attitude to anyone or anything that would challenge what you consider truth.

      You call articles made by respected scientists/professors with respected degrees teaching at respected colleges as pseudo science simply because they don’t agree with a 200 year old theory.  That is unscientific, biased and illogical. 

      It’s all the same science, James. 

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Cdbren, I call articles by people who have top-notch credentials irrelevant if they are not in a field related to the discussion. Do you accept Richard Dawkins’ views on theology simply because he has good credentials in biology?

    And I continue to view you as a dishonest charlatan because you just said that the discussion is about a 200-year old theory. No mainstream biologist views evolution in the way Darwin did, because the science has progressed by leaps and bounds since then.

    But if you wish to engage in such dishonesty, then exactly how old is the notion of intelligent design?

    You have yet to apologize for any of your lies or attempts to cover up errors, and you have yet to show any interest in actually understanding scientific matters about which up until now you have shown yourself to have little or no comprehension.

    And when others point this out or find it frustrating, you claim that they are the problem.

    • Anonymous

      re, James: Cdbren, I call articles by people who have top-notch credentials irrelevant if they are not in a field related to the discussion. Do you accept Richard Dawkins’ views on theology simply because he has good credentials in biology?
      Good since I presented many articles by people in the related fields with top notch credentials. So by your own admission you must accept them as relevant.

      Since evolution was first introduced as a theory by Darwin and has, in your words, progressed, then it is a 200 year old theory. Although I would argue that Darwin presented merely natural selection within a species at work and the idea of evolution from common ancestry is a separate hypothesis.

      The theory of ID probably goes back at least 800+ years. I am not being dishonest about either theory.

      I have not lied about anything. If something I or someone else has said is in error or a mistake then we conduct ourselves as adults in an adult conversation and move forward with the debate. We don’t call names and single people out in a futile attempt to discredit not the facts, but the person presenting those facts, as you continually do. 

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Cdbren, I challenge you to compare the CV of Michael Behe to that of any biologist or geneticist at a major research university. Perhaps then you will be able to spot the stark difference the rest of us see, and begin to grasp what we mean when we say that science involves research.

    Lying and then saying you have not lied does you no credit. Admit that you tried to cover your earlier error and lied about it, and then perhaps we can interact with you as a mere fallible human being rather than someone who seems to be a charlatan.

    • Anonymous

      James, I don’t spot any stark differences. For the record I don’t agree with some of Behe’s conclusions but that has no bearing on whether he did the research correctly or not. 

      • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

        Then I can’t believe that you looked, or otherwise you don’t know what to look for, what scholarly output looks like. Where are the programs of research? Where are the publications of results of research? Where are the things that characterize work in the sciences? All largely absent from Behe’s career in recent years.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    The words in red? There are no words in red in the original Greek. Stop rewriting the Bible.

    There also were no quotation marks. Without them, where would you end the quotation(s) in John 3?

    • Anonymous

      James, the KJV or any other version sometimes highlights the words of Jesus (where it clearly states “Jesus said:”) in red, merely for easy reference. 

      Just as the Scofield study bible has notes in the sidebar for references and clarity. Or a bible will have an index or maybe a map of Israel inserted.

      It is not rewriting at all as you can clearly see where Jesus is speaking in the text. I figured this would be easy to figure out for a biblical teacher but here I am explaining it to you.

      • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

        As I said, Cdbren, please tell me where the words of Jesus and of John the Baptist end in John chapter 3 and which are the words of the narrator.

        • Anonymous

          John 3 says “Jesus answered…” or “Jesus answered and said unto them” where Jesus is speaking. It is a narrative of a conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus. You can tell where it ends when it says “After these things…”. It isn’t hard to figure out. 

          • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

            So in John 3:31-36, it is John the Baptist speaking, even though it is in the same distinctive style in which Jesus and/or the narrator speak in the earlier part of the chapter, and even though no one in this chapter sounds quite like anyone in the Synoptic Gospels? Are you certain about that?

            • Anonymous

              If I am not certain about it, what difference does that make? The real narrator of scripture is Jesus Christ anyway.  

              • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                So you reject the traditional ascription of these works to four human beings names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and attribute them instead to Jesus? I don’t know that I have encountered someone with that precise view before. How do you explain Jesus’ variations in detail and style across the four works?

                • Anonymous

                  All scripture states it is inspired by God. Most writers wrote things they themselves did not even understand. God guided them but they also wrote in their own style. It is not just man’s words.

                  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                    All Scripture says it is inspired? Unless you are referring to the Qur’an, that statement is not merely untrue but nonsensical. As for how the authors were inspired and what they understood, how do you know this?

                    • Anonymous

                      “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” 2 Timothy 3:16

                      You know, from the holy spirit? 

                      Hebrews 4:12 says, “For the word of God is living and active. . .” It has power to reveal a sovereign God. 

                      The Second Epistle of Peter
                      claims that “no prophecy of Scripture … was ever produced by the will
                      of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy
                      Spirit” (2 Pet 1:20–21).

                      Are you like more of a form critic of the bible?

                  • Anonymous

                    re:
                    All scripture states it is inspired by God. Most writers wrote things they themselves did not even understand. God guided them but they also wrote in their own style. It is not just man’s words. 

                    what does 2 tim 3:16 say?
                    All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 

                    what is the referent-Scripture?

                    at the widest it is the scrolls of the Hebrew Scriptures that the author of 2 tim has in mind as Scripture.

                    the new testament doesn’t exist and most of the books that will be in it aren’t written yet, certainly not in wide circulation, 1 tim is early and probably written by paul, 2 tim is later and probably not written by paul.

                    in any case, it can not mean: “All scripture states it is inspired by God”
                    because nowhere else do the various books of the Bible claim inspiration(it’s actually claiming expiration but we won’t go into that) for either themselves or other texts. you have 66 books, at least to deal with,(which canon do you use, i know of about 10) 1 of them, 2 tim makes a claim for some subset of the ones in the hebrew scriptures being inspired.

                    you are conflated a claim, made by one book, out of 66 into a claim by each of the 66 books. a nonsensical logical error, at best.

                    2 tim is making a claim about what he knows as the Scriptures, not what you have in your hand called the Bible. how can this apply to the Gospels which are yet to be written?

                    Scripture doesn’t claim for itself what you do. read the text.

                    re:
                    Most writers wrote things they themselves did not even understand

                    this has to be the ultimate easter egg claim for Scripture. i have no idea where you get this. are they ghost or spirit writing while in a trance? if they didn’t understand what they wrote, how would their immediate readers? more nonsense i think.

                    • Anonymous

                      rmwilliams, so you think that every prophet of the bible knew exactly what they were writing or understood it exactly? 

                    • Anonymous

                      re:
                       Most writers wrote things they themselves did not even understand 

                      re:
                      so you think that every prophet of the bible knew exactly what they were writing or understood it exactly? 

                      you assert: “Most writers wrote things they themselves did not even understand”

                      so if i dispute your assertion then: “every prophet of the bible knew exactly what they were writing”.

                      do you see the logical error of the excluded middle?
                      either “they did not understand” or “they knew exactly”?

                      what happens to multiple levels of understanding? or partly understanding? or like reading a novel and seeing things the author had in their unconscious/subconsciousness. etc.

                      more black or white no grey type of thinking.

                    • Ian

                      I feel a bit odd wading back into this discussion, particularly in what will probably seem to be cdbren’s defence.

                      But 2 Tim 3:16 has long been interpreted as referring equally to the NT. I get where you’re going with cdbren, but this particular tack strikes me as obviously a strawman, since I’d imagine you both having no problem with this interpretation if it came from somebody else.

                      As far as I can tell the logic goes something like: 2 Tim 3:16 refers to a category of literature ‘scripture’ of which the books that the author knew were the exemplars. Centuries later the church, inspired by God, understood further works to also be part of the same canon. And thus they were equally ‘scripture’, and thus by God’s revelation that 2 Tim was also part of his revelation they are to be taken as God breathed.

                      Now, I don’t believe in God, so this isn’t my horse in the race. And you can simply disagree that scripture is infallable (thus making 2 Tim fallable) and so the whole house of cards is very easy to pull down, without pretending that there’s some massive logical inconsistency in using 2 Tim as a self-referring statement. I just found the tone you are taking on this issue odd. It didn’t faze Barth, is it really the coals you want to haul cdbren over?

                      Often when someone puts forward an argument from specious axioms, and therefore reaches the wrong conclusion, it can be tempting to attack the argument, rather than the axioms at the source of the error. But in doing so, we risk losing the logical high-ground. I agree cdbren, and all biblical inerrancists are wrong, but I suspect its an axiomatic rather than an inference error.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Ian, I can understand that a point which, even if it is correct, is circular and thus unreasonable, might seem not to be worth analysing in terms of other issues that make it problematic. But it seems an important point that, since there was no New Testament when 2 Timothy 3:16 was written, then it cannot possibly be referring to a New Testament.

    (I suppose I should also add that if the Pastoral epistles are forgeries in Paul’s name, as most scholars conclude, then perhaps they could be late enough to have other NT texts in mind – but in a way that doesn’t help the Biblicist one bit. If they were actually written by Paul, then it goes without saying that 2 Timothy does not have in view Gospels that had not been written yet).

    • Ian

      Here’s an analogy. If I say

      “All fundamental particles are indivisible.”

      And then in a couple of thousand years physicists find a new particle, it is both true that I did not have that particle in mind and that my statement holds with regards to that particle.

      Similarly an author can say “all scripture is X” and be referring to what he thought was ‘scripture’, but later on we can change what constitutes ‘scripture’ without making the statement absurd.

      The concern for authorial intent over hermeneutic utility is a mark of good historical critical scholarship. But that was my point: the mismatch with cdbren is that he doesn’t seem to give a fig about what the writer of 2 Tim thought about anything. Which strikes me as a reasonable theology, if bad history.

      Of course, you’re preaching to the choir to me about the authorship of 2 Tim, and what the author would have put in the scriptural category at that point. But I don’t think any of us can say whether, if asked “could you conceive of further scripture coming to light or being written in the future, and would you consider that also to be god-breathed, etc.” what he’d have said.

      It just seemed an odd battle to pick.

      • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

        Well, Cdbren has been so stubborn and at times so dishonest that I am simply trying anything and everything possible in the hope that something might get through to him and help him see himself and his arguments the way they look from the perspective of others.

      • Anonymous

        Ian, you have to also consider that whoever wrote II Timothy may have been led by the holy spirit to write what God wanted them to write. In that case God would have had the foreknowledge that we would eventually have a whole NT in the future. 

        If it were just man’s writing and God had nothing to do with it then you have a valid point. Yet you can’t dismiss something as a possibility simply because of your own opinion about it. 

        The reason I don’t seem to “give a fig” about what the writer of Timothy thought is because I believe the scriptures where they say that God guided men to write through the holy spirit. That sort of brings me to where I said that the writers of the bible books probably did not know the real meaning of some of their writings.

        • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

          The reason you don’t give a fig about what these ancient authors intended is because it allows you to believe that the meaning of these texts is whatever you wish it to be, Cdbren.

          • Anonymous

            it’s an interesting question, i’m glad to see ian’s input on it.

            it you break the link between authorial intent and the meaning of the text, even if you do it as cdbren does, by making God the ultimate author who can keep the human author in the dark about what the passage really really means. then the Scripture becomes full of easter eggs, ready to be displayed when human knowledge reaches the right point so the readers can really understand it.

            this is the way most prophecy in the bible supposedly about future events works. when we get to those times, then the passages will become clear. but cdbren extends this to all of Scripture. since the author can be ignorant of the real meaning of what he wrote, so are his first readers, and those of all the generations to follow, up until the precisely right time and the easter egg pops open and the passage is clear to everyone because they now have the background to understand it. i think this denies perspicuity.

            the problem is really how flexible this is. since God in Gen 1 causes the animals to rise up from the ground, i can contend that the real meaning wasn’t clear until Darwin posited evolution. 

            but the real issue is hermeneutics. how do we read and apply Scripture?
            a metaphor is an arch. down the left side is the text, you have to understand what it meant to the original hearers, what that author meant. you abstract, going up the arch in the metaphor, until you have principles that are transferable, the very top bar. then you go down the right leg to us at the bottom applying the general principles to our specific needs. most fundamentalists want to draw straight lines across the arch, drawing direct inferences from Scripture without taking the difference in their and our contexts into consideration. they short circuit the hermeneutical arch. 

            • Anonymous

              rmwilliams, check the posts. I have not “extended this to all of scripture”. I never made that statement. 

              You can’t be as flexible as you say for Gen. 1 as it clearly states that God created animals fully formed and to “multiply after their kind”. This implies species and also man was made different than animals. Then you have the full genealogy to deal with from Adam to Noah, Noah to Jesus… 

            • Anonymous

              a popularly written article about the sheer complexity of human evolution.
              http://edge.org/conversation/rethinking-out-of-africa 

              at the same time i see ken ham is dissing the history channel for
              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/03/history-channel-mankind-the-story-of-all-of-us_n_1181990.html 
              on his facebook page

            • Ian

              “how do we read and apply Scripture?”

              Well I think hermeneutics is on dodgy ground generally. Who says that 
              Scripture is supposed to be applied? That’s where the rot starts. You either approach Scripture objectively, historically, and analytically, or you do hermeneutics from a position of subjective faith.

              Once you abandon any aim to objective truth, you are reduced to aiming towards self-consistency as the goal. Hermeneutics, like theology, I find interesting, but ultimately it is an exercise in human creativity rather than deepening knowledge. I don’t see how following one hermeneutic based on a particular theology of the bible is different to any other. Unless someone can show how to ground some particular theology in something we can objectively study. I can’t see any reason to assume that ‘following the arch’ is going to lead to anything more useful than ‘shortcutting’, any more than I can see that ‘following the arch’ in Gulliver’s Travels is going to lead to something worth ‘applying’.

              PS: I use ‘objectivity’ here advisedly, though it can appear hopelessly naive to anyone who’s sat through even one lecture of pomo, happy to unpack what I mean.

              ===

              Cdbren wrote: “Ian, you have to also consider that whoever wrote II Timothy may have been led by the holy spirit to write what God wanted them to write. ”

              That was the point I was making. If you assume that as your starting point, then the passage in question seems not to offer much of a problem. 

              It seems fine as a theology. It’s far too far fetched for me: if the bible is the direct message of the universal God to his creation, then I’m afraid I can’t take him very seriously. But if you start from that point, then 2 Tim 3:16 seems to gel fairly easily.

              [Edited to restore gobbled linebreaks]

          • Anonymous

            Well James, you are entitled to your opinion of me but it is not true. Either the scripture we have as the bible is God breathed from the Holy Spirit as it states in more than one place or it is not. 

            I study and read the scriptures/cross referenced/in context for what they say James. Not what I want them to mean.

            • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

              In what sense are you interested in what they “mean” that is distinct from what you want them to mean and make them mean, Cdbren? What does “God-breathed” mean? Exactly what you think it must. What does raqi’a mean? Your answer has nothing to do with linguistic, cultural, or even careful exegetical study, but is simply what you are persuaded the word must mean, because it must conform to your standard of accuracy even if it makes the text ambiguous or even nonsensical to its original ancient author and readers.

              You may not yet be able to see what you are doing with the Bible. There was a time when I was in pretty much the same situation. But I am hopeful that the Spirit of Truth can lead you and help you see what is now in a blind spot for you.

              • Anonymous

                God called the raqia (expanse, visible arch of the sky) shamayim (the sky, the visible arch where the clouds move). 

                That is what Genesis tells us it means, regardless of what you or I think it means. Other scripture says God “stretched” the heavens out. I would imagine that is where distant starlight was created and the apparent age of the universe happened much quicker than what we perceive as normal. 

                • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                  It is possible for human beings to imagine all sorts of things. But let us focus on what these texts actually say. Do you believe that the sky is something that can literally be stretched out?

                  • Anonymous

                    I think the creation process involved physics that is beyond me so do I believe the what the scriptures tell me happened. Yes, I do. 

                    • Anonymous

                      we agree again, i too think the physics and math of modern cosmology is behind my abilities

  • Anonymous

    Ian, one other detail is that Timothy said “All scripture”. Not “the scripture I am writing” or “some scripture” or “only certain scriptures”. What would the “all” encompass? The completed NT? The books written by the apostles? 

    • Anonymous

      re:
      What would the “all” encompass? 

      what the writer knew as scripture, the hebrew scrolls he used.

  • Gary

    cdbren said “Ian, one other detail is that Timothy said “All scripture”.” So does that mean after the fact, a couple hundred years later, in a meeting of bishops (who I would interprete to mean effectively Catholic bishops), they decided which scriptures went into the bible, and those, based upon Catholic bishop’s recommendations, are the ones you follow. Or is it referring to the scriptures Timothy knew at the time. Including the apocrapha…or by magic the bible appeared in its current form, even though RSV and NIV have different meanings? Man, what a mess.

  • Anonymous

    Cdbren, I see you are mentioning the 2 Timothy 3:16 again. Are you aware that:
    a. The authorship of 2 Timothy is disputed; most scholars believe it was not written by Paul.
    b. It can equally read “Every scripture inspired of God…”. James can correct me if I’m wrong, but that significantly changes the meaning of the verse.
    c. I see you’ve been trying to apply this verse to the New Testament by saying that God knew the rest of the NT would be finished. Well that’s wonderful, can we apply this to the Book of Mormon as well? It is, after all, “Another Testament of Jesus Christ”. Does 2 Timothy apply to the BOM as well for you? Why not?

    • Anonymous

      Yet another book written by one man, one book. You can research it and find quite a few details where the BOM discredits itself. Aside from that, it came about under circumstances warned about in the Bible that would be false prophecy. 

      As far as I know Joseph Smith was not named as one of the chosen Apostles. (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul….)

      • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

        Cdbren, while I don’t disagree with your points about the Book of Mormon, it seems worth pointing out that, if you DID accept the Book of Mormon as inerrant Scripture, any places where it seems to discredit itself would be able to be explained away using the same methods you use on the Bible.

        On what basis do you accept the church’s traditions that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels attributed to them?

        • Anonymous

          James, I will assume you are unaware of the problems with the BOM. They can’t be explained away. They deal with historical authenticity.

          I understand where you are coming from with authorship of the gospels. None of them have a label attached with the authors name. They have attributed an authors name to each gospel, to the best ability of those that have done the research. I believe the content is more important though and is also included in the considerations.

          I am not sure how those facts make the writings any less authentic. I would assume that the apostles recorded as well as repeated to others what events had happened in their lives. As far as I am aware, we don’t have alternate yet similar writings that alter the gospels that we do have.

          • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

            It seems as though anything can be explained away, if one really wants to.

            I’m not sure what you meant by “As far as I am aware, we don’t have alternate yet similar writings that alter the gospels that we do have.” Do you mean texts like the Gospel of Peter?

      • Anonymous

        re:
        As far as I know Joseph Smith was not named as one of the chosen Apostles. (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul….) 

        where again in these lists is Paul?
        Mt. 10:2-4 Acts 1:26

        • Anonymous

          In Acts 13 the Holy Ghost actually called/chose Paul to do God’s work. He was a “prophet and teacher”. 

          Jesus, Holy Spirit, God….same person.

          • http://www.rethinkingao.com Mike Beidler

            Jesus, Holy Spirit, and God = same person?

            Uhhhhhhh, I don’t think so.

            • Anonymous

              Mike, simply stating your disagreement is fine but you didn’t say why.

              I can give you many scripture references that show clearly that Jesus, the Holy Spirit and God all act in one accord. Are all the same person. Or you could research it yourself from the bible. Have you read the NT? 

              • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                I wonder what Ken Ham would say about your rejection of the historic doctrine of the Trinity, Cdbren…

                • Anonymous
                  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                    What you wrote is at odds with the Nicene Creed and with the AiG page you linked to.

                    • Anonymous

                      So the three persons (Jesus, the Holy Spirit and God) are not the same God? They are all personifications of the same person. 

                      It doesn’t matter how you say it. They are the same. 

                      If I am an uncle, a father and someones son then:

                      Uncle, father, son = one person

                      All persons named = one person
                      —–

                      Jesus, God, Holy Spirit = one person

                      All persons, God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus are one. 

                      What, are we in kindergarten? 

                    • Anonymous

                      re:
                      If I am an uncle, a father and someones son then:

                      that’s called modalism
                      http://carm.org/modalism 

                    • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      Cdbren, Apparently you need to spend less time debating scientific topics you don’t understand, and more learning about your own faith and its traditions and history, which you also evidently don’t understand.

                    • Anonymous

                      I understand it just fine James. Three persons = one God. 

                    • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      Should we expect your earlier reference to one person to be edited away, to be followed by a denial that you ever said such a thing?

                    • Anonymous

                      James, the names are different, the form is different, the person is the same. 

                      They are all God. Last I looked, God is one person.  

                      I think you get way too hung up on wordage and miss the real meaning.

                    • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      Cdbren, Christians both ancient and modern have considered this matter to be as important as you think evolution and creationism are, if not more so. This is just another example of a young-earth creationist focusing on modern issues and ignoring the historic Christian faith, and the matters it deemed important, in the process.

                      I have no objection to your being a unitarian, and/or a modalist. You just seem to think that you aren’t either, and that is what is puzzling.

                    • Anonymous

                      James, both Unitarian and modalist believe in only one God as one distinct person. They don’t believe Jesus was God.

                      I, however, believe the Bible which states that all three names or manifestations are one being. One person, all three the same God. All three one being. 

                      That is not unitarian or modalist. (They don’t accept the Godhood of Jesus.)

                      I suppose my use of “person” is what threw you off. 

                    • http://www.rethinkingao.com Mike Beidler

                      cdbren,

                      Your scientific prowess is only matched by your theological astuteness.  Congratulations on attaining a “total package” paradigm.

                    • Anonymous

                      re:
                      I have no objection to your being a unitarian, and/or a modalist. You just seem to think that you aren’t either, and that is what is puzzling. 

                      is cdbren a member of an orthodox church and a sloppy thinker without much historical knowledge? or is he a member of a modalist church and is quoting what he has been taught? or is he just confused and unaware of the technical vocabulary: persons, substance, etc? i’m not sure.

                    • Anonymous

                      re:
                      I think you get way too hung up on wordage and miss the real meaning. 

                      wordage?-a big battle was fought over a single letter-
                      ὁμοιούσιος 
                      ὁμοούσιος 

                    • Anonymous

                      one of the things we hear from AiG/YECists/cdbren is that evolution isn’t an experimental science but only uses “historical” techniques. this is just interesting & good science 
                      http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/01/10/resurrecting-evolution-to-solve-an-800-million-year-old-puzzle/

                    • Anonymous

                      rmwilliams, did the experiment produce any new, complex genetic information? 

                    • Anonymous

                      the willing suspension of disbelief.

                      what does it take to read things that you disagree with?
                      if you want to understand things you have to wait to stuff them into your favorite boxes until after you read for comprehension. otherwise theydon’t challenge your ideas and just get shuffled into your little mental boxes without thinking about them.

                    • Anonymous

                      Re, James: “Should we expect your earlier reference to one person to be edited away, to be followed by a denial that you ever said such a thing?”

                      James, did Jesus claim to exist before his human form existed? Along with your answer, another question: Was Jesus then God or another separate God when he pre-existed? 

                      Can you explain what the Holy Spirit is? Is the Holy Spirit a person and who is it?

                    • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      Cdbren, my point is that (1) the church fought hard to answer those very questions, (2) your way of putting things was judged heretical by the majority of Christians down the ages, and (3) you don’t seem to realize or care that the first two points are the case. I personally have no objection to you departing from historic Christology and Trinitarian theology, just as you have departed from the historic treatment of Scripture, science, and creation. But I do intend to draw to your attention that that is in fact what you are doing and to call you on it if you deny it.

                    • Ian

                      Wow, I’m surprised.

                      I assumed that most churches would teach the doctrine of the trinity correctly at least. What church teaches a Godhead with three in one person? I haven’t come across that before.

                      Trinity = distinct persons, very very definitely distinct persons. Three distinct minds, of the same substance.

                      “modalist …. don’t believe Jesus was God.” 

                      !

                      cdbren, mate, just stop now and take a deep breath and ask someone who knows what they’re talking about what you’ve missed. You’re wandering off blithely into some bizarre territory here. 

                    • Anonymous

                      O.k. What I said originally was all the names, persons (Jesus, Holy Spirit, God) are the same person: God. 

                      God exists as three persons, but all the same one God. 

                      Whatever natural attributes and power God the Father has, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have as well.

                      That is trinitarianism. 

                      I am not sure how you don’t see that as a Godhead with three in one person or three persons in one Godhead, or three persons, one God. That is what the trinity is. 

                      (Correction on modalists. They do believe Jesus was God but not the trinity. Unitarianism does not believe Jesus was God. My mistake.)

                    • http://www.rethinkingao.com Mike Beidler

                      Unitarianism, cdbren, is much more complex than your mere statement that “Unitarianism does not believe Jesus was God.”  Is that your final answer?

                    • Anonymous

                      Mike, In regards to the Unitarianism movement, I was only commenting on their ideas about Jesus or more specifically the trinity where they don’t believe Jesus was God. Nothing else. 

                    • Ian

                      cdbren,

                      Okay, but you are wandering dangerously close to language that has been a heresy through pretty much all Christian history.

                      “three in one person” is definitely not a statement of orthodox trinitarianism. I get that you see it as just a simple synonym for “three in one being”, but you should be aware that the doctrine of the trinity as understood by just about every Christian denomination still in existence specifically denies the first statement. Just be aware that, among people who know about theology, if you say “three in one person”, you are saying something heretical. As an illustration, try asking your pastor whether he’d be happy using “three in one person” language in the trinity section of your church’s statement of faith. Chances are he’d be barred from it by the denomination, or thrown out of any alliances the church is part of if he did. It might be so slight as to be barely noticeable difference to you, but the others on here are right that it is not a minor difference theologically.

                      “modalism” is one way to have ‘three in one person’, because you have essentially one personality, one mind, so God just appears to be the father when behaving in one way, the spirit when in another and Jesus in another. There is no absolutely eternal separation between persons.

                      James said “unitarianism”, not “Unitarianism”, the first is any theology that says there is only one single God. Modalists are therefore ‘unitarians’. The second is a specific liberal protestant theology that doesn’t believe Jesus is God. Its a bit like the difference between ‘catholic’ and ‘Catholic’, one is a normal english adjective, the other a denomination.

                    • Ian

                      Re ‘”three in one person” is definitely not a statement of orthodox trinitarianism. ‘

                      Your other summaries from the same paragraph: “three persons in one Godhead, or three persons, one God” are both orthodox statements of trinitarianism. 

                      If its still bizarre, fair enough. Just be aware that “three persons one God” is not another way of saying “three in one person” as far as the majority of Christian denominations go.

                    • Anonymous

                      Thanks Ian for the explanations. In hindsight I suppose “three in one person” could be construed as stating “three Gods in one person” even though any logical person can see I meant “Jesus, the Holy Spirit, God” as the “three” and “person” as meaning God. I will try to be more careful in my wording in the future. 

                      My church has this statement posted on their website:

                      THEOLOGY – We believe there is one infinite,
                      changeless, holy God, eternally existing in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 

                    • Ian

                      It wasn’t the ambiguity of there being three gods that is the problem with the ‘three in one person’ language. Christians have long held that it is important that the Father, Son and Holy spirit are separate, are divisible, are *different*. They aren’t merely different aspects of one thing, or different ways of looking at one whole, or different names one gives to the same person. They aren’t like water, ice and steam: different forms of the same thing. They are separate. The ability for God to be in three separate persons is and has been crucial for addressing certain kinds of heresy. 

                      The statement of faith of your church has language that is *very* specific. It wasn’t chosen by accident, and not many other ways of saying it would do.In the doctrine of the trinity, the three persons are co-existent (they exist separately but together), consubstantial (made up of the same stuff), and together they constitute one divinity, one God. But merging them together into one thing, one person, is where the heresy lies.

                      This can seem odd, because it is far more normal for folks to err on the side of thinking about separate gods, so I guess most pastors spend more time talking about the oneness of God, emphasizing that the trinity doesn’t mean there are three Gods. Jesus is God, not ‘a god’. But even so, both extremes are heretical with respect to most denomination’s beliefs. It is not the case that there are three gods, and it is not the case that the trinity is one person.

                      This is why the trinity has traditionally got a reputation for being hard to understand.

                    • Anonymous

                      I’ve been researching and thinking on this a lot over the past day or so and never associated myself with labels. I don’t like labels. But I have found that the way I personally understand the trinity is more in line with Oneness Theology (theological doctrine of Oneness) than modalism. If any disagree with that view, that is fine. I don’t think it is as important an issue as those here think it is.

                      On the other hand those here are perfectly fine with the way the word “evolution” is thrown around and has so many different meanings. If only you held to the same standards with that word/concept/theory as you treat the trinity….

                    • Ian

                      Cool, glad you figured out what you believe. Nobody can tell you what to believe. If you don’t believe in the trinity, that’s fine. This place his full of heretics with regards to traditional doctrines, so nobody is going to tell you what to believe. It is just interesting that you have non-orthodox views on your Christianity as well as on science.

                      Historically, the problem with ‘oneness’ type formulations has been that it causes a problem for understanding the incarnation. It is hard to square a single divine person with the fully-god-fully-man notion of Jesus and a separation of Jesus on the cross and in Hades. This has been the major reason that 99% of Christian churches through history have condemned your views as heretical.

                      The little dig on evolution was unnecessary, imho, but hey. I’ve not figured out what ‘evolution’ means when you say it yet, either, so we’re in the same boat with regards to one another.

                    • Anonymous

                      Ian, it was not an important issue to me. I read that:

                      “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”1 John 5:6-8

                      There is no individuality in that statement. They can’t argue with each other, they are not separate. They are the same. How they appear, what form they take is irrelevant. To me anyway. 

                      Then there is the statements in the bible that there are two bodies. A fleshly one and a spiritual one. That kind of answers the question about the separation of Jesus on the cross and in Hades. (Then when Jesus came back he had a new body.) 

                    • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      Cdbren, you really, REALLY need to read the footnote to that verse. It was  not introduced into the Greek New Testament until the time of Erasmus. Its origin appears to be as a gloss on the Vulgate.

                    • Ian

                      I wrote a two-part blog post on 1 John 5:6-8:

                      1. http://irrco.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/the-johannine-comma-the-story-of-how-a-bible-verse-was-written/

                      2. http://irrco.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/the-reading-of-a-bible-verse/

                    • Anonymous

                      James, thanks for the clarification. Yes, that seems to be the case and I was not using as the main basis for argument. Just that it is different than the statement “three persons, one God”. 

                    • Ian

                      You definitely don’t have to justify it to me. It is an issue for you and your church. From my point of view it is just interesting to hear about your choices. As it was interesting to hear about your views on the common descent of plant families.

                      It is interesting because, certainly for the vast majority of Christian history, and for the majority of Christian denominations now (maybe yours is different), rejecting the traditional doctrine of the trinity would have been a *much* bigger deal than accepting evolution, or treating genesis as primarily mythic. You can find early church leaders who are fondly remembered who taught a mythic Genesis (Augustine springs to mind), but those who didn’t follow correct trinitarianism are now remembered as outcasts and heretics.

                      I don’t say that to make any point, because every church tradition is different, and you’ve clearly drawn the line between true Christian and false believer through interpretation of the bible. Christians who reject your interpretation of the bible, who do not believe it is inerrant, God-breathed, and accurate, are somehow not as true and genuine believers as those who do. That’s fine, its your perogative to do that. But I think the surprise you garnered here over your unorthodox view on the trinity is because for most Christians in the world and history, doctrinal purity on the nature of God was even more important in deciding who was genuinely a Christian and who was a false believer.

                      That you’re comfortable standing outside of historical Christianity, and saying “no – the particulars of the trinity is not important – a range of views on the nature of God are fine: both traditional trinitarianism, and my oneness view” is cool, afaic.

                      I’d hope you could maybe use that knowledge to step back and consider whether your right and proper comfort with your own heresy shouldn’t mean you give others some more slack. But hey, as I keep saying, its not my battle, since I’m not a Christian of any stripe.

                      [NB I use heresy here to merely mean 'against orthodox doctrine' - in modern religious studies there is absolutely no insult meant by using the word]

                    • Anonymous

                      re:
                      James said “unitarianism”, not “Unitarianism”, the first is any theology that says there is only one single God. Modalists are therefore ‘unitarians’. The second is a specific liberal protestant theology that doesn’t believe Jesus is God. 

                      it becomes even more complex when you are reading theology written several hundred years ago, for instance, the term Socinian will be a common, usually derogatory term, that often identifies the unitarians(small u) of those days. this contrasts the the term Sabellianism, which seems to be commonly applied to various modalism, usually “Jesus only” groups.

              • Anonymous

                the historical western Christian formulation:
                three divine persons (Greek: ὑποστάσεις) 
                being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father 

                even the wiki gets it right.

              • http://www.rethinkingao.com Mike Beidler

                cdbren,

                I’ve read *and* studied the NT more than enough to impress you.  But declaring God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are “the same person” is *not* something derived from the NT, or didn’t you know that?  The designation of the separate persons within the triune Godhead is derived from historical developments in the evolution of “orthodox” Christian theology, of which you appear to be unfamiliar, for even a lay theologian worth his salt wouldn’t have made the rookie mistake you did.

          • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

            Oh, so you don’t accept the historic Christian creeds? I hadn’t realized.

            • Anonymous

              Which one? The Nicene Creed, the Apostles Creed or The Definition of Chalcedon? 

              In any case I don’t have a problem with any of them.

  • Anonymous

    They can’t be explained away- well now I think you do a really good job with the global flood, tower of babel, census at Jesus’ birth, the conquest of Cannan, etc. And the Heavenly Father and Jesus did appear to Joesph Smith according to the BOM; I believe the qualification for apostle is seeing the risen Jesus.

    Just to let you know, there are Mormon apologetics ministries such as FARM and SHIELDS who do do that, in the same manner you do.

  • Anonymous

    Wow.

  • Anonymous

    Well this is incredible. Cdbren, you should seriously go do some reading, not only of biology, but of church history and theology. Geez.

    Btw, if anyone is interested, I googled cdbren’s doctrinal statement and found out that cdbren’s church is Crossroads Baptist Church in Dillsburg, PA. You can visit their site here: http://www.crossrdsbiblechurch.com/index.html

    They are a dispensational baptist church as far as I can tell. The pastor is doing a “literal” bible study of the book of Revelation… That is, everything literal execpt the words “To the 7 churches of Asia” :-).

    Their Facebook is here: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Crossroads-Bible-Church/158462900884140?sk=wall

    • Ian

      Interesting aaron, but slightly bordering on the inappropriate to post it, no? Or am I just oversensitive about netiquette?

  • Anonymous

    As far as evolution, what I mean when I say it is the idea that different species came from a common ancestor. That species adapted to live in water or vise versa. That whole body plans can change a piece at a time to form new complex parts, ligaments, blood vessels, etc. that were not present in the genetics of either parent species. 

    The idea that that kind of complex information can just appear randomly or by mutation. Contrary to all scientific observations of how information arises. That nature can run backwards to how it appears to run, making things better. 

    The “evolution” I see happening is from a full gene pool enabling fully created species to quickly adapt to environments. Like the black tipped shark and other observed, very fast natural selection. Down to less genetic information in that gene pool, separating species so far as to not be able to mate affectively in some cases. 

    Basically just natural selection/mutations at work which is not intelligent nor direction oriented nor able to create new complex genetic information.

    That is how we scientifically observe nature working, on a large scale. Order to disorder. Not disorder to order. 


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X