Very few in this debate are "hindering scientific progress in the name of God". Pundits ridicule those who doubt evolution as being 'anti-science'. They are using the controversy over Intelligent Design to warn about "fundamentalists" who want to reverse modern science and take us back to the Dark Ages. The overheated reaction- including purges of scientists who doubt Darwinism, censorship of dissident ideas, and legal action against promulgating Intelligent Design--is a textbook illustration of what the pioneering historian of science Thomas Kuhn describes in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962).
He shows how scientists develop "paradigms," or explanatory models, the terms of which they use to organize their findings and interpret their research. For example, for centuries, the Ptolemaic model of the universe, the assumption that the moon, the sun, and the planets revolve around the earth, was adequate to account for nearly all astronomical observations. But then someone discovered "anomalies" that the model cannot easily explain. Galileo with his telescope observed that some other planets had moons revolving around them, as earth does.
Typically, the old-paradigm scientists first defend the model by attacking the anomaly detectors, often virulently, sometimes using the law and institutional power to silence the critics of the established model. Galileo was tried, forced to recant, and put in prison. Meanwhile the scientists tinker with the model and try to make it fit the observations. The Ptolemaic system was modified with epicycles and complex new mathematical models. Eventually though, as more and more anomalies are discovered, the old paradigm is abandoned and a new one that explains the anomalies takes its place (such as the Copernican model that the earth revolves around the sun along with the other planets).
Intelligent Design has found anomalies that just cannot be explained in terms of Darwin's random natural selection. As Michael Behe has shown, the most basic mechanisms of life--the structures within a cell, the chemistry of blood-clotting, the processing of oxygen--display "irreducible complexity" that could not have evolved randomly. If these already complex and finely tuned structures were not in place, life on any level could not exist.
Apologists for evolution often simply ignore these anomalies. They launch off on "evidence" for Darwinism, such as how bacteria develop strains that are resistant to antibiotics through natural selection. But no one denies that natural selection occurs... of course the fittest survive. However, Darwinism insists that natural selection is what creates new species. And the evidence for that happening--for bacteria turning into another life form--is lacking.
Oddly, some of the outrage against Intelligent Design comes from "Theistic evolutionists." They say evolution is how God chose to order and create life. But the crux of Darwinism is precisely that evolution is undirected, stemming from *random* mutations. Those who say there is a purpose to evolution are no longer in the Darwinist paradigm. Whether they want to or not, they are advocating Intelligent Design. Since purpose, direction, and non-random order can be observed everywhere in nature, perhaps they will eventually inspire a scientific revolution.
No one is hindering or "undermining" scientific progress in the name of God or faith. Pundits ridicule those who doubt evolution as being 'anti-science'. They are using the controversy over Intelligent Design to warn about "fundamentalists" who want to reverse modern science and take us back to the Dark Ages. The overheated reaction- including purges of scientists who doubt Darwinism, censorship of dissident ideas, and legal action against promulgating Intelligent Design--is a textbook illustration of what the pioneering historian of science Thomas Kuhn describes in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962).
He shows how scientists develop "paradigms," or explanatory models, the terms of which they use to organize their findings and interpret their research. For example, for centuries, the Ptolemaic model of the universe, the assumption that the moon, the sun, and the planets revolve around the earth, was adequate to account for nearly all astronomical observations. But then someone discovered "anomalies" that the model cannot easily explain. Galileo with his telescope observed that some other planets had moons revolving around them, as earth does.
Typically, the old-paradigm scientists first defend the model by attacking the anomaly detectors, often virulently, sometimes using the law and institutional power to silence the critics of the established model. Galileo was tried, forced to recant, and put in prison. Meanwhile the scientists tinker with the model and try to make it fit the observations. The Ptolemaic system was modified with epicycles and complex new mathematical models. Eventually though, as more and more anomalies are discovered, the old paradigm is abandoned and a new one that explains the anomalies takes its place (such as the Copernican model that the earth revolves around the sun along with the other planets).
Intelligent Design has found anomalies that just cannot be explained in terms of Darwin's random natural selection. As Michael Behe has shown, the most basic mechanisms of life--the structures within a cell, the chemistry of blood-clotting, the processing of oxygen--display "irreducible complexity" that could not have evolved randomly. If these already complex and finely tuned structures were not in place, life on any level could not exist.
Apologists for evolution often simply ignore these anomalies. They launch off on "evidence" for Darwinism, such as how bacteria develop strains that are resistant to antibiotics through natural selection. But no one denies that natural selection occurs... of course the fittest survive. However, Darwinism insists that natural selection is what creates new species. And the evidence for that happening--for bacteria turning into another life form--is lacking.
Oddly, some of the outrage against Intelligent Design comes from "Theistic evolutionists." They say evolution is how God chose to order and create life. But the crux of Darwinism is precisely that evolution is undirected, stemming from *random* mutations. Those who say there is a purpose to evolution are no longer in the Darwinist paradigm. Whether they want to or not, they are advocating Intelligent Design. Since purpose, direction, and non-random order can be observed everywhere in nature, perhaps they will eventually inspire a scientific revolution.
------ speciation has not only been observed, but induced. read up on the current academic lit instead of the tripe that your pastor hands out courtesy the discovery institute or bob jones university for a change. ------
I don't know how you're defining "speciation", but the shit that many science teachers teach as 'fact' in a lot of textbooks has *not* been replicated and by all means cannot be replicated in an experiment because of the time necessary to do so.
------------ NOTHING in the record outside of the bible makes any weighty testimony regarding their character, intent, motivations, or mental health. ------------
Here you are dead wrong my friend. There were contemporaries of the apostles who wrote about them and followed in there footsteps. They are called "the Church Fathers" and the wrote historical account after historical account and the testimony of many of their own lives of subsequent devotion in and of itself testifies to what originally motivated the apostles.
-------- were you to bring all of the evidence supporting christianity in general, and the resurrection in particular, into a court of law, you would be tossed out on your ass. ---------
You are completely wrong here as well. The same type of evidence that shows George Washington or Julius Ceasar were in truth men who existed (ie, historical evidence) more then amply shows Christ existed. And the apostolic evidence, as I said, the empty tomb, and their subsequent lives for HIm is an enormous testimony to His life changing power and the impact his ressurection had on the group of people He passed the faith onto. You can choose to deny the evidence, which you do, but that doesn't make it a "fairy tale".
It is about as far from a "fairy tale" as it gets. In calling it a fairy tale you are showing an extreme amount of ignorance. There is evidence there that has convinced some of the greatest minds of the truth of Christ. I already mentioned Thomas Arnold. C.S. Lewis is another. Dr. Frank Morrison, a lawyer who had been brought up in a rationalistic environment, had come to the opinion that the resurrection was nothing but a fairy-tale happy ending which spoiled the matchless story of Jesus. He felt that he owed it to himself and others to write a book that would present the truth about Jesus and dispel the mythical story of the resurrection. Upon studying the facts, however, he, too, came to a different conclusion. The sheer weight of the evidence compelled him to conclude that Jesus actually did rise from the dead. Morrison wrote his book--but not the one he had planned. It is titled, Who Moved the Stone? The first chapter, very significantly, is, "The Book That Refused to Be Written."
I by no means intend to insult you. But "fairy tale" is by far the wrong word. I seek the truth, as I bet you do as well. I may be wrong about evolution... I simply wanted to share my thoughts and hear others'. I'm not a scientist by any means. Nor am I a theologian.
But the fact remains that if I'm wrong, and if all the historical evidence I and others speak of is wrong, then I will have lived a completely fullfiling life (I've found the peace and joy that comes from honoring Christ with my lifestyle to be substantial) and I'll die and just stop existing. Pretty good.
But if I'm right, I will then spend eternity in rest and delight with my Savior and my friends in Him since his blood has washed us from our sins that kept us from Him. And you, my friend, will end up in an eternity separated from all that is good... from the God of the universe. If you're right then you live for a few short years and then stop exisiting. If you're wrong then you quite literally have hell to pay... forever.
If I were you I'd figure, "Hey, I've got a lot to loose if these 'jesus freaks' are right... so I might want to give this story a little more credibility then a 'fairy tale'." If I were you I'd examine the Scriptures and read the testimonies of the learned men who have deeply examined and were deeply changed by this evidence based faith a little more carefully and openly.
---- the Miller-Urey experiments and later work based upon them showed that complex organic compounds can be formed from rather basic components like CO2, ammonia, and water, including short-chain nucleic acids. Biologists have long observed speciation and evolution in action. ----
Speciation has not been observed, friend. Evolution has... but the two can be different.
---- wrong again. there is NONE. there are no contemporary accounts of the life of christ outside the bible and gnostic texts, which were originally in it until constantine and the pope decided against their inclusion. the closest is a single passage in the writings of josephus, who wasn't born until 4 years after the supposed resurrection and published his account, if you can call it that, 60 years after his death (I bring his account into this with a great deal of skepticism since its been under controversey for hundreds of years, and is almost certainly an editorial addition.) Another example: The census mary and joseph were on their way to when jesus was born? Never happened. The Romans never ordered any census in that region or near that time. as for the resurrection itself, let's think about this one for a moment. It goes against everything we know about the way the universe works. There have never been any artifacts found positively confirming the idea that someone was dead and then not. all we have to go on is a collection of books which have had all conflicting accounts purged from them. This happens all the time in the world today, except we don't call it a resurrection and create a religion out of it; we call it fraud. just ask enron and worldcom employeees.
i'm going to save my "religion is the root of all evil" speech for another day... ----
The apostles, Paul, and other authors of the New Testament texts are indisputably historical figures. That they became more widely known then Christ is the reason for this. Christ's physical travels and scope of influence were smaller then theirs. This is part of what Christ was referring to when he said, "I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father." (John 14:12)
*All kinds* of historical accounts testify to these men's lives, character, and deaths. And their lives taken as a whole are a very strong (and yes, *historical*) pointer to Christ born, died, and ressurected. No group of men would die for a known lie with no monitary or sexual gain. People like Joseph Smith, David Koresh, or even Muhammed start religions based on lies or delisions... but these men can be seen for what they are in that they amass wealth, sex (many wives/lovers), and/or land for themselves. The apostles were historically men of great character, faith, and courage who died for their beleives in the face of great opposition.
These men had experienced something great that set them apart from anything the world had or has experienced. That much is obvious. Read the Holy Scriptures with a open heart and mind and you'll experience something great as well. Read their accounts of who Christ was and you'll see that he was one in whom there was no sin, he was the perfect combination of love and justice... he was the Lamb who gave himself for your and my sins.
When evolutionary theory tracks all the way back to "origins" it becomes theological too. There is just no repeatable experiements to prove the assumptions it makes. Period. People who want to strip God out of society (like Joseph Stalin attempted to do, and largely succeeded). So don't stop at ID when you bash science that becomes theological.
And as far as not being able to prove your faith; I'm afraid there is ample evidence for your faith in the ressurection and saving power of Christ. Professor Thomas Arnold, for 14 years a headmaster of Rugby, author of the famous, History of Rome, and appointed to the chair of modern history at Oxford, was well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: "I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God bath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."
He said this because there are vast amounts of historical and logical evidences for the ressurection. Look into the lives of early Christians and of the apostles. There is vast evidence testifying to the character of these early witnesses. Compare how these *historical figures* lived their lives to historical testimonies of the actions of founders of other religions and the evidence just mounts and mounts. Something powerful changed these men... the same something that resulted in an empty tomb of the most infamous religious figure in the world.
Should I be suprised that an anti-creationist doesn't want to admit weaknesses in evolutionary theory? No, I shouldn't be... no more so then I should be at your assumptions of my reading habits. However foolish such may be, I'm not suprised by them.
You guys shouldn't be afraid to call PE what it is... a response to the observation that the fossil record didn't (doesn't) lend the kind of support darwinian "macro" evolutionists expected.
Do you even know what a punctuated equilibrium is???...Punctuated Equilibrium is a theory that earth goes through periods of intense evolutionary changes.
Again, calm down. I saw the first question mark. The other two just show you have more emotion in this debate then reason.
Punctuated Equilibrium is more an observation than a theory of evolution. To Eldredge and Gould Instead of a slow, continous progression, the evolution of life on Earth seems more like the life of a soldier: long periods of boredom interrupted by rare moments of terror. And of course they observed fossils to make this observation. The fact is though, their observation is not proven. In fact the reason they had to start looking for evidence to support PE is because of a *lack* of evidence supporting darwinian macro evolution.
The evolution from one species to another is not proven and certainly is not repeatable. It remains a theory. Some scientists are more convinced by the little evidence we have then others. And you're assumptions about my reading habits don't prove anything either, they just continue to make you look bigotted, biased, and foolish.
...let me see I can bring some light to the dark dungeon that is your mind.
I have no idea what the fuck you mean by this comment about my mind... but this is obviously a case of the pot calling the kettle black again, as I mentioned with you liberal plank-eyes looking for specs in the eyes of people you disagree with. There certainly seems to be a lack of "respectable disagreement" when it comes to quite a few of you guys, especially on slashdot.
How do you test for falsifiability of generation of a new specie? Just look at history: i.e. fossils.
And the evidence isn't there. That's the whole reason you guys came up with the "punctuated equillibrium" *theory* if I remember correctly.
If it was impossible for a specie to evolve to a completely different specie, then you should be able to find a geographically isolated area (let say an island) where through out history, all species on the island is completely stable.
That's assuming that oceanic levels/land masses/land bridges haven't moved... which earth science tells us they have.
Oooh, guess what? No such place exists (thus evolution has not been proven false yet)
Don't you love it when people use excited sarcasm to make a point that is so obviously flawed. Calm down, and remember that your "geographically isolated" island has not always been, and no one in their right mind would say that is a controlled environment in which experiments should be done or wholly relied upon. Also remember, I didn't say evolution has been proven false. I said it hasn't been proven true ("macro" evolution that is). I'm not "anti-evolution". I'm simply open minded enough to let two opposing theories about the origins of our universe and our species battle it out in the minds of our up and coming thinkers instead of trying to blind their eyes to perfectly legitimate theories. I personally am glad there are evolutionists out there seeking a better understanding of our origins. I love to hear evidence the have found and presented. I also enjoy hearing intelligent design thinkers analize the possibilities of natural selection 'designing' some of the most intricate complexities of life. I think the bias displayed against the latter in the scientific community is sad, as is obviously seen in your heated, sarcastic, (and flawed mind you) tone.
And when the fossil records are good, it show step by step evolution of a specific specie (let's say an early elephant) into another (walrus). It is repeated (there's that word again) again and again, everywhere you look.
No, actually it doesn't. Not nearly clearly enough and most certainly not in a way that shows us how to repeat such theoretical phenomena in a controlled, repeatable manner.
You can apply this same reason (not falsifiable) to natural selection as well, at least to the segments of the theory that I mentioned. So just re-read my original post and substitute "falsifiable" for "repeatable". My points stand.
The type of "macro evolution" taught in the public classroom cannot be tested wholly. Due simply to the time spans involved you cannot replicate it in an experiment. You must look at evidence from long ago and infer.
Everyone here is saying, "Science is repeatable... hence ID isn't science." Hello? Much of evolutionary theory then is not science also. Sure, the fact that natural selection can modify existing features within established species is repeatable. But textbooks are teaching our children that natural selection can modify features outside established species, that is, create new species. That is a theory, ladies and gentlemen.
Therefore, the best way to present it to young students is *as a theory*. If the student is interested in a deeper understanding let him pursue further study as he/she advances in his academic career.
Intelligent Design is also theory. It proposes some arguments against certain parts of natural selection/"macro evolution". For instance, some proponents may show that some things we find in nature are too complex to be explained by the theory of evolution... that logic would prevail against such complexity occuring "by chance".
Either teach both theories, or teach only fact and don't teach theory. I personally think the theories are important, so teach them both and let young students have open minds as they seek to better understand life and origins. Teach the theories and the evidences for both, and let the students duke it out with their own minds and (if they choose) with their own academic careers.
The "religious right" are always accused of having closed minds... but often the left can't see the spec in the rights eye for the plank in their own.
You seem to interpret people disagreeing with a belief that the earth was created recently as people calling God a liar. I interpret that position as someone believing that God can create the universe any way God chooses and that the position that the earth is young is a misinterpretation of scripture. A human mistake, NOT blasphemy.
No, what I am saying is that *if* it turns out that God actually did create the earth looking old, any man who would then turn to his Creator and call Him a liar for doing it would be a fool. Why? Because creating something looking older then it is isn't necessarily lying, that is questionable. And to go toe to toe with your creator over something that is questionable is foolish.
I'm not trying to shake your faith or convince you that your understanding of God is false. I think that I'm mostly trying to persuade you to ungroup the people that you call "evolutionists" into individual people.
And that is a good thing, and so I thank you. Again though, my experience with most people I've discussed evolution with who hold to that theory being true is that they tend to be anti-Christian, or at least anti-conservative Christian. That just happens to be my personal experience.
"For instance, there are actually many trained and highly learned geologists and anthropologists who do *not* believe in the theory of macroevolution."
Just for variety, I'm going to challenge you on this point. I'm aware of the lists that the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis have, but are you referring to other information that would support your statement?
If you search through the articles at ideacenter and also their links page (http://www.ideacenter.org/resources/links.php) you'll likely find some more names. But mind you these are only the most outspoken of such scientists. There are others. For example, I personally knew a biology professor at NCSU when I was in school there who did not hold that the theory of evolution was necessarily true. There are actually many like him throughout the nation and even world. I'm just saying, the people are out there. But there is a lot of discrimination and sometimes even outright anger directed toward them, even if their arguments have scientific merit.
For instance, in an article entitled "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," which was made available online on August 28 by the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Stephen Meyer concludes: "what natural selection lacks, intelligent selection-purposive or goal-directed design-provides." Stephen Meyer is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.
The editor of the Proceedings said that the three peer reviewers of the paper "all hold faculty positions in biological disciplines at prominent universities and research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, one at a major US public university, and another at a major overseas research institute. The reviewers did not necessarily agree with Dr. Meyer's arguments but all found the paper meritorious, warranting publication."
The reaction that the editor (Richard Sternberg, a staff scientist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information) got from many in the scientific community prompted him to say, "It's fascinating how the 'creationist' label is falsely applied to anyone who raises any questions about neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory," he said. "The reaction to the paper by some [anti-creationist] extremists suggests that the thought police are alive and well in the scientific community." Though he also said he got a good number of reactions from scientists that were purely interested in the paper, not biased about it.
...the first thing that should be questioned is your comprehension of BOTH Truths.
I agree. There is nothing wrong with introspection.
I think that much of the acrimony in these discussions comes from the reluctance of people to question their comprehension of the Truth that makes them most comfortable. Which is a wholely (sic?) understandable, human failing.
Granted.
Would you grant some other entity the power to create the universe?
I'm not sure what you mean by that. I believe the Biblical account of creation. I don't mind people quesitoning that belief, and I enjoy examining it myself too... but I don't appreciate being called foolish for it.
Or would you have the creator allow the majority of creation to provide false and confusing evidence?
I have no problem with the creator allowing creation to lead someone to believe something that isn't true. In fact, such would be entirely biblical. For instance, in the Old Testament the Creator (God) had the prophet Samuel mislead king Saul as to Samuel's main intentions in coming to the city of Jerusalem (he told him he was coming to make a sacrific, which he in fact did, but mainly he was coming to annoint David to be king). Also, God is said to "harden the hearts" of people who would not believe anyway, which means he virtually ensures that they will not come back to him.
Now I'm not going to presme that is what God had in mind in creating the earth as it is, but I'm just answering your question in saying that I would have no problem with the fact that God could do that if it so pleased him. I tend to prefer the "old is beautiful" direction. I mean, if the earth's crust weren't made up of layers upon layers of sediment... what would they be made of? God has created the earth as it is, it is his perogative. And if he has described himself accurately to us in the Scriptures, then he is sovereign over all and is omnicient. So he can do things that might seem to be misleading to us, but in the end he has his reasons for dealing with each person in creation however he deals with them and for allowing them every bit of knowledge he allows them.
I don't see where questioning my comprehension of revealed Truth is "talking back to my creator".
I didn't imply that it was. First of all, you would have to believe in a creator in order to talk back to one, and I don't even know if you do. So in that I wasn't necessarily implying you talk back to the creator. Secondly, you had said that science shows that any literal interpretation of the Bible and in particular the Old Testament (my view) is foolish. I responded to that claim and also told you what I rather thought would be foolish. This is because the response of most people to the thought that God might actually have created the earth looking old is that such would be stupid thing for God to do and would make him to be a liar. And actually saying that, my friend, to the Creator of you and I and all that is would be an entirely foolish response. That being said, when I said that I was not sure if that is your response or not so I wasn't directly talking to you. I was just making a statement.
I do find it interesting though that you seem to be (by your choice of words) to be offended at the notion of someone talking back to their creator. I would suspect that God could deal with that situation on his own?
I wouldn't say it offends me. I simply think it is a foolish thing to do. I pity the person who does it, but I'm not offended by them.
...The rainbow in the sky isn't something heavenly placed in the sky and then removed, it's caused by light diffracting through raindrops.
I'm sure the people of old had times they were beating towels dry or causing mist in some other way during which they saw the "little rainbows" that appear when we do such things. People likely understood that water dropplets cause rainbows. They
I see the same universe and world that you do. I also have no problem with the fact that God might've created the earth and universe *looking* old. What would a mountain range look like with no trees? Or with no worn down edges? If creation was as the Scriptures describe it, then it by definition *had* to be created looking at least a little aged (if actual trees were created instead of just seeds) and perhaps very aged (with some mountain ranges looking more 'rugged' then others, etc).
For instance, I know some people who decorate their house with furniture that looks much, much older then it really is. They think it is beautiful, and I tend to agree. Perhaps God agrees. He is a creative creator. And he doesn't create beauty for our sake's alone. It is entirely possible that he created things looking older then they are, even things not ussually visible to the human eye. And if he did, and if he thought it was beautiful, and if he actually is God and Creator, then we have no intrinsic right to talk back to him and tell him he was wrong for doing so.
I also know that different dating techniques rely on certain assumptions about historical isotope levels, etc that, if the biblical creation account is true, could cause those techniques to be flawed. I also know I can't go much deeper into the subject then that, for my own lack of knowledge about it.
So yes, if you were to say I'm no geologist, just a man of faith, then you would not be incorrect. But you are incorrect if you call me a fool. Rather a fool would be one who is created and then talks back to his Creator to tell him he's done things the wrong way.
I hope you haven't seen the same "outrage toward anyone who questions their beliefs" in me that you claim to see in these "creationsists" you refer to. I welcome things that make me rethink my beliefs. I understand that my beliefs have often been wrong in the past. I also happen to think the theory of evolution is just that, a theory, and a fundamentally flawed one at that. It doesn't explain itself logically and doesn't make sense considering our present reality. My claiming that in this forum generated more outrage toward me then is usually seen... but you probably didn't notice since it wasn't "creationists" that were showing the outrage.
For my part, I suppose I probably shouldn't have used the term "horsehit" to describe the theory of evolution... apparently people who most often claim no religion react to one who insults that theory as if he's insulted their religion. Interesting...
Thanks for the context. As far as my context, I was raised in a Christian home by two Christian parents. Early in adulthood I rejected the Christian faith and could be defined as an agnostic leaning toward atheism. I tasted what the world had to offer as far as living for money, sex, drugs, etc. Christ ended up drawing me back to himself through a series of difficult events. "Taste and see that the LORD is good; blessed is the man who takes refuge in him," from Psalms 34 is basically what happened to me. All I had tasted growing up was head knowledge about him. But once I actually trusted him and began to trust, pray to, and seek after him as best I could within a few years I could no longer doubt even if I tried. He has revealed his power to me in too many ways at this point. I know without a shadow of a doubt that He is Lord of all Creation. I know why the Apostles were willing to give their lives for His namesake on this earth.
I think you're mistaken about Lewis. I don't think he would mind that you think Christ was a madman. In fact, what I understand from reading him is that he prefers for you to say that rather then saying Christ was *merely* a good moral teacher. So many people brush Christ off as being a good teacher and that's it. If anyone actually reads His words, as you obviously have, then he must come to the conclusion that either the man was insane or he was an utter liar... or He was actually God in the flesh who came to die for our sake. And you are correct, being insane does not necessarily exclude being a good teacher of moral principles.
Do you always tell people to shut up when you disagree with what they say or they say something that doesn't make sense to you?
The reason I don't accept the theory of evolution is because it is a pile of horseshit... plain and simple. I don't say that to personally offend you. I'm just stating my opinion. Its flaws are obvious as I already noted. If minor environmental changes are the difference between evolving into a monkey or a human, we'd expect to see more similarity between humans and the "next best thing".
Humans are radically different then any other creature... and evolution can't explain why something would "want" to evolve into anything other then the obviously superior human being (with its critical thinking abilities, etc). Humans everywhere are strikingly similar and strikingly different then any other animals.
Have religious "zealots" been wrong before? Yes, as you so admirably pointed out. But have scientists been completely wrong on many issues before as well, even concerning once commonly held notions? Yes, many times. But you probably don't give such situations a second thought... because you're probably a hypocrite (given what you've said so far in this dialogue).
As far as Matthew 16:27,28 continue reading the first 10 verses of chapter 17. That event is commonly referred to as "the transfiguration" and is likely what Christ was referring to. "The Transfiguration" also follows Christ's statment about some standing their not tasting death before they see the Kingdom in Mark 9:1. Basically it was a glimps for those disciples of the Kingdom of God. Also Peter refers to seeing Christ's Kingdom coming in majesty as the transfiguration event in 2 Peter 1:16, so there is essentially no doubt that is what Christ was referring to there.
Obviously you've read the Scriptures. If I were you I'd continue to read the New Testament since you can probably "stomach" that a little better then the Old. Many people can't stomach either, and as you have said there are great moral principles found in the New Testament, so anyone who can actually read it will at least benefit somewhat in this life from it. I'm glad you think Christ's teachings are a good moral code. They certainly are. But sadly, that isn't primarily why were given his teachings.
As CS Lewis points out in 'Mere Christianity', "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
But it is certainly not unthinkable that a group of people could start a religion in such a way based on mistaken beliefs and outright lies. It has in fact happened several times. You may notice there are several other religions in the world with ancient books espousing the immortality and power of their paticular messiah. No, starting a world chaning religion is not easy, but it's been done more than once.
Actually, as I said... its never happened before and it will never happen again. No group like Christianity's first founders has ever started "a myth" like this one and then died for it. Sure, religions have been started by lies... but always by essentially one mixed up individual who ended up using his authority to take advantage of others sexually and/or monitarily. Two examples: Mormonism and Islam.
Joseph Smith started the mormon religion based on (most likely) a lie about a vision from an angel. Be it a lie of his or if something actually visited him, it was only he that saw it. He eventually got 12 "witnesses" to sign something later saying they saw the angel talk to him again later. But something like 7 of those eventually confessed to lying about it (not forced confession, they just dropped out of his religion for one reason or another). And he himself and other leaders took many wives according to his a new rule of "revelation" that allowed such practice. This is all documented since this is fairly recent history.
Islam's Muhammed is basically the same type of deal. He alone recieved a "vision", then conqured people and cities in then name of this 'God' that had spoken to him... taking plunder and wives.
The analgy about you and I and 10 others heading to Iran is basically the only way you can explain Christianity starting. And again, shit like that doesn't happen. It just hasn't and doesn't. I've never seen a similar one, and I'd love it if you could show me one. Its not that I hate evidence against Christianity... I just seriously haven't seen one. Not 12 people starting a lie and holding to it for no monitary/sexual gain whatsoever for the rest of their lives to the painful, bitter death. You can find other resurrection stories, yes... but you will never find anything like how Christianity began. It doesn't make any sense apart from Christ actually rising from the dead in front of these men and others. Paul and the Aposltes are historical facts and also are historical anomalies. We must ask ourselves WTF they were thinking.
When Christ said to them, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed," he wasn't referring to people who would later step out in complete blind faith. He was referring to people who would see that the preponderance of the evidence points to a risen Christ, and then would surrender their lives to him and find that He is in fact true and good. In this sense, the Apostles combined testimonies and deaths are as important as Christ's himself. If you deny Christ, don't do it because "there are similar stories". There aren't.
On the other hand, if you deny Christ because of his support of the Old Testament then that is your choice. And at least that choice is somewhat more reasonable, historically speaking. I can certainly understand being horrified at some of the teachings in the Old Testament. On the other hand, in light of other verses about how much God detests sin and we are all his declared enemies because of our sin such things are at least almost comprehensible to me. The horrors of what we all deserve if we truly have all denied our Creator as visciously as the Scriptures claim we have is worse even then the Old Testament's.
As you've probably heard many times, the Old Testament and the New show two sides of the same God, his justice and his mercy. I don't know any child who enjoys the justice of their father growing up when they frist experience his discipline. Usually it makes them cry and wail in emotional (and sometimes slight physica
Since when is science a democracy? If we assumed a theory was true when ever 51% of scientists thought it was probably true then we'd be nowhere near where we are today in any field. And if you fail to believe spontaneous generation is a possible explaination for our existance because I can't "site(sp) one example of spontaneous generation that can be observed in the world today" then you must fail also to believe in macroevolution. I admit I'm no anthropologist. But I have seen utterly ridiculous examples of evolution once almost unanimously accepted and later disproved. The fact that there are anthropologists who don't believe in macroevolution, combined with the obvious fallings of that theory I've already noted, is enough for me to discredit it.
And as far as the Scriputres being written by "unknown hands", etc, with all due respect... you are talking out of your ass I'm sorry to say. It will be nearly impossible for you to find one historian, secular or religious I care not, who will tell you with a straight face that Paul didn't exist and/or didn't author most if not all of the letters ascribed to him in the New Testament. The New Testament letters are without a shadow of a doubt among the most historically verifiable documents of similar age in the world. And back to the earliest manuscripts those letters have obviously been dealt with using great care for their preservation... only a 1% difference in all the copies, mostly dealing with slight grammatical differences. This history of intense dedication to preservation goes back to the time of the original documents.
Paul and the Aposltes are historical realities. If you don't believe so then you haven't looked into it. I'm not saying that because your lack of faith bothers me. I'm just stating a fact.
You need to ask yourself why Paul and the Apostles did what they did. Reason insists that we do so. Anyone who says "aw... we can't know who wrote that fanciful bullshit anyway" has simply not looked into the matter and weighed the historical evidence in the same manner amd with the same care they would weigh evidence with if they were on a jury trying someone.
Has the church abused its power in history? Yes. But going back to Paul and the Aposltes... did they do what they did for selfish power? By all accounts these men did not use their authority to gain sex, money, drugs, or anything else like that. When they collected money it was given to the poor or widows in the church, etc. And had they abused their authority there would be accounts of it. People were trying to slaughter their reputations. By all accounts these we men dedicated to a cause, even to the point of death... even crucifiction upside down. 12 of the 13 Aposltles including Paul were put to death.
This would be like you, I, and 11 others deciding randomly to go to Iran and preach that Edward, some dude we knew back in the states, was God and Allah was a myth. Just for the hell of it. No sleeping with our followers (like Branch Davidian David Koresh), no getting rich off followers money (like Jimmy Swaggart, etc)... just randomly preaching Edward until we got killed. I'm telling you, shit like that just doesn't happen. There has never been a group like the Aposltes and there never will be again. Only a man rising from the dead can cause that to happen.
And these were reasonable men as well. If you look in the Scriptures they used reason to promote Christ. In one of his letters Paul instructs people he is writing to go ask some of the hundreds of witnesses to Christ's ressurrection. He doesn't say, "just have faith". If it were just a fairy tale, then such "tactics" wouldn't have worked. His ministry would've died off like swaggart's or koresh's. Obviously such "tactics" worked incredibly well and the Christian church took off like nobody's business, facing persecution we can't even imagine. These people were fully convinced of the facts at hand. We need to ask ourselves why.
Ah... well, history is a form of a science believe it or not. Anyway, as I said above all it takes is a simple experiment to begin to see that macroevolution is a farce: look around you.
You had talked about travelling a million miles by foot ("started with a single step") so that's where I was coming from. Anyway, there are many scientists (even evolutionists) who don't link micro and macro evolution as you do.
And no, there is not infinately more evidence for evolution then for spontaneous genesis. One only need to look around him to see this is the case, as I said. Evolution, at its very fundamentals, just plain makes no sense. Then again, if finding the tooth of a now extinct type of pig or chimp is enough to convince someone that we all evolved from monkeys then there probably is, in his eyes, infinately more evidence for evolution then for spontaneous genesis.
Lastly, reason need not be separate from faith. The Christian faith is supported more by reason then anything else. See here where this was mentioned below. Blind faith has no part in Christianity. If you used to be Christian, then I'd say it is pretty obvious you never bothered looking very deeply into what grounds your Christian faith was based on. Had you done so, I doubt you'd be saying the things you are saying right now about Christians failing to depend on reason.
First of all, the very fact that you say there is no evidence whatsoever for creationist theories means you are ignorant (and by that I mean you haven't yet taken any significant time to look into the matter for yourself). And this is not suprising, since you choose to post as an anonymous coward. You are likely too lazy to have looked into the matter yourself. Note that I have not even said that about evolutionist theories... and that is because I am not ignorant of the evidence that exists for evolution.
But anyway, if you want to argue about the truth of the Christian Scriptures, let's focus on the culminating event of those writings... the ressurection of Jesus Christ. I'll cite some quotes from some very learned men who have looked into this matter. Since you obviously haven't looked into it yourself, I would strongly suggest you perhaps skim some of the books these men have written on the subject.
Dr. Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote the famous legal volume entitled, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written. Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection -- Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion! He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated: "it was impossible that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not Jesus Christ actually risen from the dead,..." (Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29).
Greenleaf concluded that according to the jurisdiction of legal evidence the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the best supported event in all of history. And not only that, Dr. Greenleaf was so convinced by the overwhelming evidence, he committed his life to Jesus Christ.
In his book Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice, Greenleaf writes: "All that Christianity asks of men...is, that they would be consistent with themselves; that they would treat its evidences as they treat the evidence of other things; and that they would try and judge its actors and witnesses, as they deal with their fellow men, when testifying to human affairs and actions, in human tribunals. Let the witnesses [to the Resurrection] be compared with themselves, with each other, and with surrounding facts and circumstances; and let their testimony be sifted, as if it were given in a court of justice, on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability and truth."
Thomas Arnold, formerly Professor of History at Rugby and Oxford, one of the world's great historians says, "I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better, fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died, and rose again from the dead."
J. N. D. Anderson, in the words of Armand Nicholi of the Harvard Medical School (Christianity Today, March 29, 1968), is a scholar of international repute, eminently qualified to deal with the subject of evidence. He is one of the world's leading authorities on Muslim law, Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of London, Chairman of the Department of Oriental Law at the School of Oriental and African Studies, and Director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies at the University of London. In Anderson's text, Christianity: The Witness of History, he supplies the standard evidences for the Resurrection and asks, "How, then, can the fact of the resurrection be denied?" Anderson further emphasizes, "Lastly, it can be asserted with confidence that men and women disbelieve the Easter story not because of the evidence but in spite of it."
I've never met an evolutionist who didn't think the theory was "obvious". And I'd bet you are the same way. But I suppose you don't like looking in the mirror, so you just choose to pick on "god-fearers" instead.
The journey of walking a million miles is a good analagy... because will never happen. It may start with a single step, but the person will die before he/she walks a million miles. Microevolution is the same way, it doesn't necessarily lead to macroevolution. Again, the evidence is all around us that evolution has not and is not taking place.
And it certainly is no suprise to me that some people would have you believe biblical stories are nothing more then metaphors. And as far as Mark 4, yes... Jesus taught in parables and explained to his disciples why he taught in parables. But while he outright claimed that he used parables to teach, he never once claimed the Scriptures themselves were simply parables or metaphors. So I'm not sure why you are trying to make that assertion via Mark 4. In fact, he did the very opposite many times and referred to the Scriptures as historical fact when speaking to the Israelites about their history and forefathers.
Evolution is an attempt to explain our environment apart from faith in God's Word. Nothing more, nothing less. And it has hence been the source of some of the most ridiculous ideas to ever have fallen on the fallen ears of humanity.
-jay
"You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals So let''s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel" - 'The Bloodhound Gang', Bad Touch.
You are under the mistaken belief that you as a human, are more superior to a monkey...
Oh! Gee whiz, how could I have been so ignorant? Thank you.
Seriously though... what on earth would cause something to want to be a monkey instead of a human. Humans are radically different and much more adept to survive in any environment then a monkey, via their critical thinking skills, etc. Humans are obviously superior then monkeys when it comes to survival of the fittest... anyone can see that. That is why humans have conqured the earth, not chimps. If we so chose we could wipe out every damn monkey on the planet... but they could never do that to us.
So there is absolutely no reason, even under the theory of evolution, for what you are saying happened to actually happen. And besides that, even if evolution is true and minor environmental changes can result in one "fork" becoming a monkey and one becoming a man... then reason would lead us to assume there would be half-man/monkey's running around who had some of both environments.
But look around you. There is nothing even close to a human other then humans themselves. We are distict and separate, and that is because we were created in God's image. Suprise! I'm telling you, as soon as someone can dispose of their blinding desire to try rid themselves of absolute morality and an absolute Creator, the theory of evolution quickly becomes a pile of monkey shit.
Slashdot Mirror
Very few in this debate are "hindering scientific progress in the name of God". Pundits ridicule those who doubt evolution as being 'anti-science'. They are using the controversy over Intelligent Design to warn about "fundamentalists" who want to reverse modern science and take us back to the Dark Ages. The overheated reaction- including purges of scientists who doubt Darwinism, censorship of dissident ideas, and legal action against promulgating Intelligent Design--is a textbook illustration of what the pioneering historian of science Thomas Kuhn describes in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962).
He shows how scientists develop "paradigms," or explanatory models, the terms of which they use to organize their findings and interpret their research. For example, for centuries, the Ptolemaic model of the universe, the assumption that the moon, the sun, and the planets revolve around the earth, was adequate to account for nearly all astronomical observations. But then someone discovered "anomalies" that the model cannot easily explain. Galileo with his telescope observed that some other planets had moons revolving around them, as earth does.
Typically, the old-paradigm scientists first defend the model by attacking the anomaly detectors, often virulently, sometimes using the law and institutional power to silence the critics of the established model. Galileo was tried, forced to recant, and put in prison. Meanwhile the scientists tinker with the model and try to make it fit the observations. The Ptolemaic system was modified with epicycles and complex new mathematical models. Eventually though, as more and more anomalies are discovered, the old paradigm is abandoned and a new one that explains the anomalies takes its place (such as the Copernican model that the earth revolves around the sun along with the other planets).
Intelligent Design has found anomalies that just cannot be explained in terms of Darwin's random natural selection. As Michael Behe has shown, the most basic mechanisms of life--the structures within a cell, the chemistry of blood-clotting, the processing of oxygen--display "irreducible complexity" that could not have evolved randomly. If these already complex and finely tuned structures were not in place, life on any level could not exist.
Apologists for evolution often simply ignore these anomalies. They launch off on "evidence" for Darwinism, such as how bacteria develop strains that are resistant to antibiotics through natural selection. But no one denies that natural selection occurs... of course the fittest survive. However, Darwinism insists that natural selection is what creates new species. And the evidence for that happening--for bacteria turning into another life form--is lacking.
Oddly, some of the outrage against Intelligent Design comes from "Theistic evolutionists." They say evolution is how God chose to order and create life. But the crux of Darwinism is precisely that evolution is undirected, stemming from *random* mutations. Those who say there is a purpose to evolution are no longer in the Darwinist paradigm. Whether they want to or not, they are advocating Intelligent Design. Since purpose, direction, and non-random order can be observed everywhere in nature, perhaps they will eventually inspire a scientific revolution.
No one is hindering or "undermining" scientific progress in the name of God or faith. Pundits ridicule those who doubt evolution as being 'anti-science'. They are using the controversy over Intelligent Design to warn about "fundamentalists" who want to reverse modern science and take us back to the Dark Ages. The overheated reaction- including purges of scientists who doubt Darwinism, censorship of dissident ideas, and legal action against promulgating Intelligent Design--is a textbook illustration of what the pioneering historian of science Thomas Kuhn describes in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962).
He shows how scientists develop "paradigms," or explanatory models, the terms of which they use to organize their findings and interpret their research. For example, for centuries, the Ptolemaic model of the universe, the assumption that the moon, the sun, and the planets revolve around the earth, was adequate to account for nearly all astronomical observations. But then someone discovered "anomalies" that the model cannot easily explain. Galileo with his telescope observed that some other planets had moons revolving around them, as earth does.
Typically, the old-paradigm scientists first defend the model by attacking the anomaly detectors, often virulently, sometimes using the law and institutional power to silence the critics of the established model. Galileo was tried, forced to recant, and put in prison. Meanwhile the scientists tinker with the model and try to make it fit the observations. The Ptolemaic system was modified with epicycles and complex new mathematical models. Eventually though, as more and more anomalies are discovered, the old paradigm is abandoned and a new one that explains the anomalies takes its place (such as the Copernican model that the earth revolves around the sun along with the other planets).
Intelligent Design has found anomalies that just cannot be explained in terms of Darwin's random natural selection. As Michael Behe has shown, the most basic mechanisms of life--the structures within a cell, the chemistry of blood-clotting, the processing of oxygen--display "irreducible complexity" that could not have evolved randomly. If these already complex and finely tuned structures were not in place, life on any level could not exist.
Apologists for evolution often simply ignore these anomalies. They launch off on "evidence" for Darwinism, such as how bacteria develop strains that are resistant to antibiotics through natural selection. But no one denies that natural selection occurs... of course the fittest survive. However, Darwinism insists that natural selection is what creates new species. And the evidence for that happening--for bacteria turning into another life form--is lacking.
Oddly, some of the outrage against Intelligent Design comes from "Theistic evolutionists." They say evolution is how God chose to order and create life. But the crux of Darwinism is precisely that evolution is undirected, stemming from *random* mutations. Those who say there is a purpose to evolution are no longer in the Darwinist paradigm. Whether they want to or not, they are advocating Intelligent Design. Since purpose, direction, and non-random order can be observed everywhere in nature, perhaps they will eventually inspire a scientific revolution.
------
speciation has not only been observed, but induced. read up on the current academic lit instead of the tripe that your pastor hands out courtesy the discovery institute or bob jones university for a change.
------
I don't know how you're defining "speciation", but the shit that many science teachers teach as 'fact' in a lot of textbooks has *not* been replicated and by all means cannot be replicated in an experiment because of the time necessary to do so.
------------
NOTHING in the record outside of the bible makes any weighty testimony regarding their character, intent, motivations, or mental health.
------------
Here you are dead wrong my friend. There were contemporaries of the apostles who wrote about them and followed in there footsteps. They are called "the Church Fathers" and the wrote historical account after historical account and the testimony of many of their own lives of subsequent devotion in and of itself testifies to what originally motivated the apostles.
--------
were you to bring all of the evidence supporting christianity in general, and the resurrection in particular, into a court of law, you would be tossed out on your ass.
---------
You are completely wrong here as well. The same type of evidence that shows George Washington or Julius Ceasar were in truth men who existed (ie, historical evidence) more then amply shows Christ existed. And the apostolic evidence, as I said, the empty tomb, and their subsequent lives for HIm is an enormous testimony to His life changing power and the impact his ressurection had on the group of people He passed the faith onto. You can choose to deny the evidence, which you do, but that doesn't make it a "fairy tale".
It is about as far from a "fairy tale" as it gets. In calling it a fairy tale you are showing an extreme amount of ignorance. There is evidence there that has convinced some of the greatest minds of the truth of Christ. I already mentioned Thomas Arnold. C.S. Lewis is another. Dr. Frank Morrison, a lawyer who had been brought up in a rationalistic environment, had come to the opinion that the resurrection was nothing but a fairy-tale happy ending which spoiled the matchless story of Jesus. He felt that he owed it to himself and others to write a book that would present the truth about Jesus and dispel the mythical story of the resurrection. Upon studying the facts, however, he, too, came to a different conclusion. The sheer weight of the evidence compelled him to conclude that Jesus actually did rise from the dead. Morrison wrote his book--but not the one he had planned. It is titled, Who Moved the Stone? The first chapter, very significantly, is, "The Book That Refused to Be Written."
I by no means intend to insult you. But "fairy tale" is by far the wrong word. I seek the truth, as I bet you do as well. I may be wrong about evolution... I simply wanted to share my thoughts and hear others'. I'm not a scientist by any means. Nor am I a theologian.
But the fact remains that if I'm wrong, and if all the historical evidence I and others speak of is wrong, then I will have lived a completely fullfiling life (I've found the peace and joy that comes from honoring Christ with my lifestyle to be substantial) and I'll die and just stop existing. Pretty good.
But if I'm right, I will then spend eternity in rest and delight with my Savior and my friends in Him since his blood has washed us from our sins that kept us from Him. And you, my friend, will end up in an eternity separated from all that is good... from the God of the universe. If you're right then you live for a few short years and then stop exisiting. If you're wrong then you quite literally have hell to pay... forever.
If I were you I'd figure, "Hey, I've got a lot to loose if these 'jesus freaks' are right... so I might want to give this story a little more credibility then a 'fairy tale'." If I were you I'd examine the Scriptures and read the testimonies of the learned men who have deeply examined and were deeply changed by this evidence based faith a little more carefully and openly.
just my thoughts, thanks for hearing...
----
the Miller-Urey experiments and later work based upon them showed that complex organic compounds can be formed from rather basic components like CO2, ammonia, and water, including short-chain nucleic acids. Biologists have long observed speciation and evolution in action.
----
Speciation has not been observed, friend. Evolution has... but the two can be different.
----
wrong again. there is NONE. there are no contemporary accounts of the life of christ outside the bible and gnostic texts, which were originally in it until constantine and the pope decided against their inclusion. the closest is a single passage in the writings of josephus, who wasn't born until 4 years after the supposed resurrection and published his account, if you can call it that, 60 years after his death (I bring his account into this with a great deal of skepticism since its been under controversey for hundreds of years, and is almost certainly an editorial addition.) Another example: The census mary and joseph were on their way to when jesus was born? Never happened. The Romans never ordered any census in that region or near that time. as for the resurrection itself, let's think about this one for a moment. It goes against everything we know about the way the universe works. There have never been any artifacts found positively confirming the idea that someone was dead and then not. all we have to go on is a collection of books which have had all conflicting accounts purged from them. This happens all the time in the world today, except we don't call it a resurrection and create a religion out of it; we call it fraud. just ask enron and worldcom employeees.
i'm going to save my "religion is the root of all evil" speech for another day...
----
The apostles, Paul, and other authors of the New Testament texts are indisputably historical figures. That they became more widely known then Christ is the reason for this. Christ's physical travels and scope of influence were smaller then theirs. This is part of what Christ was referring to when he said, "I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father." (John 14:12)
*All kinds* of historical accounts testify to these men's lives, character, and deaths. And their lives taken as a whole are a very strong (and yes, *historical*) pointer to Christ born, died, and ressurected. No group of men would die for a known lie with no monitary or sexual gain. People like Joseph Smith, David Koresh, or even Muhammed start religions based on lies or delisions... but these men can be seen for what they are in that they amass wealth, sex (many wives/lovers), and/or land for themselves. The apostles were historically men of great character, faith, and courage who died for their beleives in the face of great opposition.
These men had experienced something great that set them apart from anything the world had or has experienced. That much is obvious. Read the Holy Scriptures with a open heart and mind and you'll experience something great as well. Read their accounts of who Christ was and you'll see that he was one in whom there was no sin, he was the perfect combination of love and justice... he was the Lamb who gave himself for your and my sins.
When evolutionary theory tracks all the way back to "origins" it becomes theological too. There is just no repeatable experiements to prove the assumptions it makes. Period. People who want to strip God out of society (like Joseph Stalin attempted to do, and largely succeeded). So don't stop at ID when you bash science that becomes theological.
And as far as not being able to prove your faith; I'm afraid there is ample evidence for your faith in the ressurection and saving power of Christ. Professor Thomas Arnold, for 14 years a headmaster of Rugby, author of the famous, History of Rome, and appointed to the chair of modern history at Oxford, was well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: "I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God bath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."
He said this because there are vast amounts of historical and logical evidences for the ressurection. Look into the lives of early Christians and of the apostles. There is vast evidence testifying to the character of these early witnesses. Compare how these *historical figures* lived their lives to historical testimonies of the actions of founders of other religions and the evidence just mounts and mounts. Something powerful changed these men... the same something that resulted in an empty tomb of the most infamous religious figure in the world.
Should I be suprised that an anti-creationist doesn't want to admit weaknesses in evolutionary theory? No, I shouldn't be... no more so then I should be at your assumptions of my reading habits. However foolish such may be, I'm not suprised by them.
You guys shouldn't be afraid to call PE what it is... a response to the observation that the fossil record didn't (doesn't) lend the kind of support darwinian "macro" evolutionists expected.
~jason
Again, calm down. I saw the first question mark. The other two just show you have more emotion in this debate then reason.
Punctuated Equilibrium is more an observation than a theory of evolution. To Eldredge and Gould Instead of a slow, continous progression, the evolution of life on Earth seems more like the life of a soldier: long periods of boredom interrupted by rare moments of terror. And of course they observed fossils to make this observation. The fact is though, their observation is not proven. In fact the reason they had to start looking for evidence to support PE is because of a *lack* of evidence supporting darwinian macro evolution.
The evolution from one species to another is not proven and certainly is not repeatable. It remains a theory. Some scientists are more convinced by the little evidence we have then others. And you're assumptions about my reading habits don't prove anything either, they just continue to make you look bigotted, biased, and foolish.
I have no idea what the fuck you mean by this comment about my mind... but this is obviously a case of the pot calling the kettle black again, as I mentioned with you liberal plank-eyes looking for specs in the eyes of people you disagree with. There certainly seems to be a lack of "respectable disagreement" when it comes to quite a few of you guys, especially on slashdot.
How do you test for falsifiability of generation of a new specie? Just look at history: i.e. fossils.
And the evidence isn't there. That's the whole reason you guys came up with the "punctuated equillibrium" *theory* if I remember correctly.
If it was impossible for a specie to evolve to a completely different specie, then you should be able to find a geographically isolated area (let say an island) where through out history, all species on the island is completely stable.
That's assuming that oceanic levels/land masses/land bridges haven't moved... which earth science tells us they have.
Oooh, guess what? No such place exists (thus evolution has not been proven false yet)
Don't you love it when people use excited sarcasm to make a point that is so obviously flawed. Calm down, and remember that your "geographically isolated" island has not always been, and no one in their right mind would say that is a controlled environment in which experiments should be done or wholly relied upon. Also remember, I didn't say evolution has been proven false. I said it hasn't been proven true ("macro" evolution that is). I'm not "anti-evolution". I'm simply open minded enough to let two opposing theories about the origins of our universe and our species battle it out in the minds of our up and coming thinkers instead of trying to blind their eyes to perfectly legitimate theories. I personally am glad there are evolutionists out there seeking a better understanding of our origins. I love to hear evidence the have found and presented. I also enjoy hearing intelligent design thinkers analize the possibilities of natural selection 'designing' some of the most intricate complexities of life. I think the bias displayed against the latter in the scientific community is sad, as is obviously seen in your heated, sarcastic, (and flawed mind you) tone.
And when the fossil records are good, it show step by step evolution of a specific specie (let's say an early elephant) into another (walrus). It is repeated (there's that word again) again and again, everywhere you look.
No, actually it doesn't. Not nearly clearly enough and most certainly not in a way that shows us how to repeat such theoretical phenomena in a controlled, repeatable manner.
God bless, jay
You can apply this same reason (not falsifiable) to natural selection as well, at least to the segments of the theory that I mentioned. So just re-read my original post and substitute "falsifiable" for "repeatable". My points stand.
~jay
The type of "macro evolution" taught in the public classroom cannot be tested wholly. Due simply to the time spans involved you cannot replicate it in an experiment. You must look at evidence from long ago and infer.
Everyone here is saying, "Science is repeatable... hence ID isn't science." Hello? Much of evolutionary theory then is not science also. Sure, the fact that natural selection can modify existing features within established species is repeatable. But textbooks are teaching our children that natural selection can modify features outside established species, that is, create new species. That is a theory, ladies and gentlemen.
Therefore, the best way to present it to young students is *as a theory*. If the student is interested in a deeper understanding let him pursue further study as he/she advances in his academic career.
Intelligent Design is also theory. It proposes some arguments against certain parts of natural selection/"macro evolution". For instance, some proponents may show that some things we find in nature are too complex to be explained by the theory of evolution... that logic would prevail against such complexity occuring "by chance".
Either teach both theories, or teach only fact and don't teach theory. I personally think the theories are important, so teach them both and let young students have open minds as they seek to better understand life and origins. Teach the theories and the evidences for both, and let the students duke it out with their own minds and (if they choose) with their own academic careers.
The "religious right" are always accused of having closed minds... but often the left can't see the spec in the rights eye for the plank in their own.
jay
No, what I am saying is that *if* it turns out that God actually did create the earth looking old, any man who would then turn to his Creator and call Him a liar for doing it would be a fool. Why? Because creating something looking older then it is isn't necessarily lying, that is questionable. And to go toe to toe with your creator over something that is questionable is foolish.
I'm not trying to shake your faith or convince you that your understanding of God is false. I think that I'm mostly trying to persuade you to ungroup the people that you call "evolutionists" into individual people.
And that is a good thing, and so I thank you. Again though, my experience with most people I've discussed evolution with who hold to that theory being true is that they tend to be anti-Christian, or at least anti-conservative Christian. That just happens to be my personal experience.
"For instance, there are actually many trained and highly learned geologists and anthropologists who do *not* believe in the theory of macroevolution."
Just for variety, I'm going to challenge you on this point. I'm aware of the lists that the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis have, but are you referring to other information that would support your statement?
If you search through the articles at ideacenter and also their links page (http://www.ideacenter.org/resources/links.php) you'll likely find some more names. But mind you these are only the most outspoken of such scientists. There are others. For example, I personally knew a biology professor at NCSU when I was in school there who did not hold that the theory of evolution was necessarily true. There are actually many like him throughout the nation and even world. I'm just saying, the people are out there. But there is a lot of discrimination and sometimes even outright anger directed toward them, even if their arguments have scientific merit.
For instance, in an article entitled "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," which was made available online on August 28 by the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Stephen Meyer concludes: "what natural selection lacks, intelligent selection-purposive or goal-directed design-provides." Stephen Meyer is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.
The editor of the Proceedings said that the three peer reviewers of the paper "all hold faculty positions in biological disciplines at prominent universities and research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, one at a major US public university, and another at a major overseas research institute. The reviewers did not necessarily agree with Dr. Meyer's arguments but all found the paper meritorious, warranting publication."
The reaction that the editor (Richard Sternberg, a staff scientist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information) got from many in the scientific community prompted him to say, "It's fascinating how the 'creationist' label is falsely applied to anyone who raises any questions about neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory," he said. "The reaction to the paper by some [anti-creationist] extremists suggests that the thought police are alive and well in the scientific community." Though he also said he got a good number of reactions from scientists that were purely interested in the paper, not biased about it.
I agree. There is nothing wrong with introspection.
I think that much of the acrimony in these discussions comes from the reluctance of people to question their comprehension of the Truth that makes them most comfortable. Which is a wholely (sic?) understandable, human failing.
Granted.
Would you grant some other entity the power to create the universe?
I'm not sure what you mean by that. I believe the Biblical account of creation. I don't mind people quesitoning that belief, and I enjoy examining it myself too... but I don't appreciate being called foolish for it.
Or would you have the creator allow the majority of creation to provide false and confusing evidence?
I have no problem with the creator allowing creation to lead someone to believe something that isn't true. In fact, such would be entirely biblical. For instance, in the Old Testament the Creator (God) had the prophet Samuel mislead king Saul as to Samuel's main intentions in coming to the city of Jerusalem (he told him he was coming to make a sacrific, which he in fact did, but mainly he was coming to annoint David to be king). Also, God is said to "harden the hearts" of people who would not believe anyway, which means he virtually ensures that they will not come back to him.
Now I'm not going to presme that is what God had in mind in creating the earth as it is, but I'm just answering your question in saying that I would have no problem with the fact that God could do that if it so pleased him. I tend to prefer the "old is beautiful" direction. I mean, if the earth's crust weren't made up of layers upon layers of sediment... what would they be made of? God has created the earth as it is, it is his perogative. And if he has described himself accurately to us in the Scriptures, then he is sovereign over all and is omnicient. So he can do things that might seem to be misleading to us, but in the end he has his reasons for dealing with each person in creation however he deals with them and for allowing them every bit of knowledge he allows them.
I don't see where questioning my comprehension of revealed Truth is "talking back to my creator".
I didn't imply that it was. First of all, you would have to believe in a creator in order to talk back to one, and I don't even know if you do. So in that I wasn't necessarily implying you talk back to the creator. Secondly, you had said that science shows that any literal interpretation of the Bible and in particular the Old Testament (my view) is foolish. I responded to that claim and also told you what I rather thought would be foolish. This is because the response of most people to the thought that God might actually have created the earth looking old is that such would be stupid thing for God to do and would make him to be a liar. And actually saying that, my friend, to the Creator of you and I and all that is would be an entirely foolish response. That being said, when I said that I was not sure if that is your response or not so I wasn't directly talking to you. I was just making a statement.
I do find it interesting though that you seem to be (by your choice of words) to be offended at the notion of someone talking back to their creator. I would suspect that God could deal with that situation on his own?
I wouldn't say it offends me. I simply think it is a foolish thing to do. I pity the person who does it, but I'm not offended by them.
I'm sure the people of old had times they were beating towels dry or causing mist in some other way during which they saw the "little rainbows" that appear when we do such things. People likely understood that water dropplets cause rainbows. They
I see the same universe and world that you do. I also have no problem with the fact that God might've created the earth and universe *looking* old. What would a mountain range look like with no trees? Or with no worn down edges? If creation was as the Scriptures describe it, then it by definition *had* to be created looking at least a little aged (if actual trees were created instead of just seeds) and perhaps very aged (with some mountain ranges looking more 'rugged' then others, etc).
For instance, I know some people who decorate their house with furniture that looks much, much older then it really is. They think it is beautiful, and I tend to agree. Perhaps God agrees. He is a creative creator. And he doesn't create beauty for our sake's alone. It is entirely possible that he created things looking older then they are, even things not ussually visible to the human eye. And if he did, and if he thought it was beautiful, and if he actually is God and Creator, then we have no intrinsic right to talk back to him and tell him he was wrong for doing so.
I also know that different dating techniques rely on certain assumptions about historical isotope levels, etc that, if the biblical creation account is true, could cause those techniques to be flawed. I also know I can't go much deeper into the subject then that, for my own lack of knowledge about it.
So yes, if you were to say I'm no geologist, just a man of faith, then you would not be incorrect. But you are incorrect if you call me a fool. Rather a fool would be one who is created and then talks back to his Creator to tell him he's done things the wrong way.
I hope you haven't seen the same "outrage toward anyone who questions their beliefs" in me that you claim to see in these "creationsists" you refer to.
I welcome things that make me rethink my beliefs. I understand that my beliefs have often been wrong in the past. I also happen to think the theory of evolution is just that, a theory, and a fundamentally flawed one at that. It doesn't explain itself logically and doesn't make sense considering our present reality. My claiming that in this forum generated more outrage toward me then is usually seen... but you probably didn't notice since it wasn't "creationists" that were showing the outrage.
For my part, I suppose I probably shouldn't have used the term "horsehit" to describe the theory of evolution... apparently people who most often claim no religion react to one who insults that theory as if he's insulted their religion. Interesting...
Thanks for the context. As far as my context, I was raised in a Christian home by two Christian parents. Early in adulthood I rejected the Christian faith and could be defined as an agnostic leaning toward atheism. I tasted what the world had to offer as far as living for money, sex, drugs, etc. Christ ended up drawing me back to himself through a series of difficult events. "Taste and see that the LORD is good; blessed is the man who takes refuge in him," from Psalms 34 is basically what happened to me. All I had tasted growing up was head knowledge about him. But once I actually trusted him and began to trust, pray to, and seek after him as best I could within a few years I could no longer doubt even if I tried. He has revealed his power to me in too many ways at this point. I know without a shadow of a doubt that He is Lord of all Creation. I know why the Apostles were willing to give their lives for His namesake on this earth.
I think you're mistaken about Lewis. I don't think he would mind that you think Christ was a madman. In fact, what I understand from reading him is that he prefers for you to say that rather then saying Christ was *merely* a good moral teacher. So many people brush Christ off as being a good teacher and that's it. If anyone actually reads His words, as you obviously have, then he must come to the conclusion that either the man was insane or he was an utter liar... or He was actually God in the flesh who came to die for our sake. And you are correct, being insane does not necessarily exclude being a good teacher of moral principles.
Do you always tell people to shut up when you disagree with what they say or they say something that doesn't make sense to you?
The reason I don't accept the theory of evolution is because it is a pile of horseshit... plain and simple. I don't say that to personally offend you. I'm just stating my opinion. Its flaws are obvious as I already noted. If minor environmental changes are the difference between evolving into a monkey or a human, we'd expect to see more similarity between humans and the "next best thing".
Humans are radically different then any other creature... and evolution can't explain why something would "want" to evolve into anything other then the obviously superior human being (with its critical thinking abilities, etc). Humans everywhere are strikingly similar and strikingly different then any other animals.
Have religious "zealots" been wrong before? Yes, as you so admirably pointed out. But have scientists been completely wrong on many issues before as well, even concerning once commonly held notions? Yes, many times. But you probably don't give such situations a second thought... because you're probably a hypocrite (given what you've said so far in this dialogue).
jay
As far as Matthew 16:27,28 continue reading the first 10 verses of chapter 17. That event is commonly referred to as "the transfiguration" and is likely what Christ was referring to. "The Transfiguration" also follows Christ's statment about some standing their not tasting death before they see the Kingdom in Mark 9:1. Basically it was a glimps for those disciples of the Kingdom of God. Also Peter refers to seeing Christ's Kingdom coming in majesty as the transfiguration event in 2 Peter 1:16, so there is essentially no doubt that is what Christ was referring to there.
Obviously you've read the Scriptures. If I were you I'd continue to read the New Testament since you can probably "stomach" that a little better then the Old. Many people can't stomach either, and as you have said there are great moral principles found in the New Testament, so anyone who can actually read it will at least benefit somewhat in this life from it. I'm glad you think Christ's teachings are a good moral code. They certainly are. But sadly, that isn't primarily why were given his teachings.
As CS Lewis points out in 'Mere Christianity', "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
Actually, as I said... its never happened before and it will never happen again. No group like Christianity's first founders has ever started "a myth" like this one and then died for it. Sure, religions have been started by lies... but always by essentially one mixed up individual who ended up using his authority to take advantage of others sexually and/or monitarily. Two examples: Mormonism and Islam.
Joseph Smith started the mormon religion based on (most likely) a lie about a vision from an angel. Be it a lie of his or if something actually visited him, it was only he that saw it. He eventually got 12 "witnesses" to sign something later saying they saw the angel talk to him again later. But something like 7 of those eventually confessed to lying about it (not forced confession, they just dropped out of his religion for one reason or another). And he himself and other leaders took many wives according to his a new rule of "revelation" that allowed such practice. This is all documented since this is fairly recent history.
Islam's Muhammed is basically the same type of deal. He alone recieved a "vision", then conqured people and cities in then name of this 'God' that had spoken to him... taking plunder and wives.
The analgy about you and I and 10 others heading to Iran is basically the only way you can explain Christianity starting. And again, shit like that doesn't happen. It just hasn't and doesn't. I've never seen a similar one, and I'd love it if you could show me one. Its not that I hate evidence against Christianity... I just seriously haven't seen one. Not 12 people starting a lie and holding to it for no monitary/sexual gain whatsoever for the rest of their lives to the painful, bitter death. You can find other resurrection stories, yes... but you will never find anything like how Christianity began. It doesn't make any sense apart from Christ actually rising from the dead in front of these men and others. Paul and the Aposltes are historical facts and also are historical anomalies. We must ask ourselves WTF they were thinking.
When Christ said to them, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed," he wasn't referring to people who would later step out in complete blind faith. He was referring to people who would see that the preponderance of the evidence points to a risen Christ, and then would surrender their lives to him and find that He is in fact true and good. In this sense, the Apostles combined testimonies and deaths are as important as Christ's himself. If you deny Christ, don't do it because "there are similar stories". There aren't.
On the other hand, if you deny Christ because of his support of the Old Testament then that is your choice. And at least that choice is somewhat more reasonable, historically speaking. I can certainly understand being horrified at some of the teachings in the Old Testament. On the other hand, in light of other verses about how much God detests sin and we are all his declared enemies because of our sin such things are at least almost comprehensible to me. The horrors of what we all deserve if we truly have all denied our Creator as visciously as the Scriptures claim we have is worse even then the Old Testament's.
As you've probably heard many times, the Old Testament and the New show two sides of the same God, his justice and his mercy. I don't know any child who enjoys the justice of their father growing up when they frist experience his discipline. Usually it makes them cry and wail in emotional (and sometimes slight physica
Since when is science a democracy? If we assumed a theory was true when ever 51% of scientists thought it was probably true then we'd be nowhere near where we are today in any field. And if you fail to believe spontaneous generation is a possible explaination for our existance because I can't "site(sp) one example of spontaneous generation that can be observed in the world today" then you must fail also to believe in macroevolution. I admit I'm no anthropologist. But I have seen utterly ridiculous examples of evolution once almost unanimously accepted and later disproved. The fact that there are anthropologists who don't believe in macroevolution, combined with the obvious fallings of that theory I've already noted, is enough for me to discredit it.
And as far as the Scriputres being written by "unknown hands", etc, with all due respect... you are talking out of your ass I'm sorry to say. It will be nearly impossible for you to find one historian, secular or religious I care not, who will tell you with a straight face that Paul didn't exist and/or didn't author most if not all of the letters ascribed to him in the New Testament. The New Testament letters are without a shadow of a doubt among the most historically verifiable documents of similar age in the world. And back to the earliest manuscripts those letters have obviously been dealt with using great care for their preservation... only a 1% difference in all the copies, mostly dealing with slight grammatical differences. This history of intense dedication to preservation goes back to the time of the original documents.
Paul and the Aposltes are historical realities. If you don't believe so then you haven't looked into it. I'm not saying that because your lack of faith bothers me. I'm just stating a fact.
You need to ask yourself why Paul and the Apostles did what they did. Reason insists that we do so. Anyone who says "aw... we can't know who wrote that fanciful bullshit anyway" has simply not looked into the matter and weighed the historical evidence in the same manner amd with the same care they would weigh evidence with if they were on a jury trying someone.
Has the church abused its power in history? Yes. But going back to Paul and the Aposltes... did they do what they did for selfish power? By all accounts these men did not use their authority to gain sex, money, drugs, or anything else like that. When they collected money it was given to the poor or widows in the church, etc. And had they abused their authority there would be accounts of it. People were trying to slaughter their reputations. By all accounts these we men dedicated to a cause, even to the point of death... even crucifiction upside down. 12 of the 13 Aposltles including Paul were put to death.
This would be like you, I, and 11 others deciding randomly to go to Iran and preach that Edward, some dude we knew back in the states, was God and Allah was a myth. Just for the hell of it. No sleeping with our followers (like Branch Davidian David Koresh), no getting rich off followers money (like Jimmy Swaggart, etc)... just randomly preaching Edward until we got killed. I'm telling you, shit like that just doesn't happen. There has never been a group like the Aposltes and there never will be again. Only a man rising from the dead can cause that to happen.
And these were reasonable men as well. If you look in the Scriptures they used reason to promote Christ. In one of his letters Paul instructs people he is writing to go ask some of the hundreds of witnesses to Christ's ressurrection. He doesn't say, "just have faith". If it were just a fairy tale, then such "tactics" wouldn't have worked. His ministry would've died off like swaggart's or koresh's. Obviously such "tactics" worked incredibly well and the Christian church took off like nobody's business, facing persecution we can't even imagine. These people were fully convinced of the facts at hand. We need to ask ourselves why.
Ah... well, history is a form of a science believe it or not. Anyway, as I said above all it takes is a simple experiment to begin to see that macroevolution is a farce: look around you.
And no, there is not infinately more evidence for evolution then for spontaneous genesis. One only need to look around him to see this is the case, as I said. Evolution, at its very fundamentals, just plain makes no sense. Then again, if finding the tooth of a now extinct type of pig or chimp is enough to convince someone that we all evolved from monkeys then there probably is, in his eyes, infinately more evidence for evolution then for spontaneous genesis.
Lastly, reason need not be separate from faith. The Christian faith is supported more by reason then anything else. See here where this was mentioned below. Blind faith has no part in Christianity. If you used to be Christian, then I'd say it is pretty obvious you never bothered looking very deeply into what grounds your Christian faith was based on. Had you done so, I doubt you'd be saying the things you are saying right now about Christians failing to depend on reason.
First of all, the very fact that you say there is no evidence whatsoever for creationist theories means you are ignorant (and by that I mean you haven't yet taken any significant time to look into the matter for yourself). And this is not suprising, since you choose to post as an anonymous coward. You are likely too lazy to have looked into the matter yourself. Note that I have not even said that about evolutionist theories... and that is because I am not ignorant of the evidence that exists for evolution.
But anyway, if you want to argue about the truth of the Christian Scriptures, let's focus on the culminating event of those writings... the ressurection of Jesus Christ. I'll cite some quotes from some very learned men who have looked into this matter. Since you obviously haven't looked into it yourself, I would strongly suggest you perhaps skim some of the books these men have written on the subject.
Dr. Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote the famous legal volume entitled, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written. Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection -- Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion! He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated: "it was impossible that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not Jesus Christ actually risen from the dead,..." (Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29).
Greenleaf concluded that according to the jurisdiction of legal evidence the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the best supported event in all of history. And not only that, Dr. Greenleaf was so convinced by the overwhelming evidence, he committed his life to Jesus Christ.
In his book Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice, Greenleaf writes: "All that Christianity asks of men...is, that they would be consistent with themselves; that they would treat its evidences as they treat the evidence of other things; and that they would try and judge its actors and witnesses, as they deal with their fellow men, when testifying to human affairs and actions, in human tribunals. Let the witnesses [to the Resurrection] be compared with themselves, with each other, and with surrounding facts and circumstances; and let their testimony be sifted, as if it were given in a court of justice, on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability and truth."
Thomas Arnold, formerly Professor of History at Rugby and Oxford, one of the world's great historians says, "I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better, fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died, and rose again from the dead."
J. N. D. Anderson, in the words of Armand Nicholi of the Harvard Medical School (Christianity Today, March 29, 1968), is a scholar of international repute, eminently qualified to deal with the subject of evidence. He is one of the world's leading authorities on Muslim law, Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of London, Chairman of the Department of Oriental Law at the School of Oriental and African Studies, and Director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies at the University of London. In Anderson's text, Christianity: The Witness of History, he supplies the standard evidences for the Resurrection and asks, "How, then, can the fact of the resurrection be denied?" Anderson further emphasizes, "Lastly, it can be asserted with confidence that men and women disbelieve the Easter story not because of the evidence but in spite of it."
... case in point. When you don't have any good reasoning and no good points to make... just resort to insults.
I've never met an evolutionist who didn't think the theory was "obvious". And I'd bet you are the same way. But I suppose you don't like looking in the mirror, so you just choose to pick on "god-fearers" instead.
The journey of walking a million miles is a good analagy... because will never happen. It may start with a single step, but the person will die before he/she walks a million miles. Microevolution is the same way, it doesn't necessarily lead to macroevolution. Again, the evidence is all around us that evolution has not and is not taking place.
And it certainly is no suprise to me that some people would have you believe biblical stories are nothing more then metaphors. And as far as Mark 4, yes... Jesus taught in parables and explained to his disciples why he taught in parables. But while he outright claimed that he used parables to teach, he never once claimed the Scriptures themselves were simply parables or metaphors. So I'm not sure why you are trying to make that assertion via Mark 4. In fact, he did the very opposite many times and referred to the Scriptures as historical fact when speaking to the Israelites about their history and forefathers.
Evolution is an attempt to explain our environment apart from faith in God's Word. Nothing more, nothing less. And it has hence been the source of some of the most ridiculous ideas to ever have fallen on the fallen ears of humanity.
-jay
"You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals
So let''s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel" - 'The Bloodhound Gang', Bad Touch.
Oh! Gee whiz, how could I have been so ignorant? Thank you.
Seriously though... what on earth would cause something to want to be a monkey instead of a human. Humans are radically different and much more adept to survive in any environment then a monkey, via their critical thinking skills, etc. Humans are obviously superior then monkeys when it comes to survival of the fittest... anyone can see that. That is why humans have conqured the earth, not chimps. If we so chose we could wipe out every damn monkey on the planet... but they could never do that to us.
So there is absolutely no reason, even under the theory of evolution, for what you are saying happened to actually happen. And besides that, even if evolution is true and minor environmental changes can result in one "fork" becoming a monkey and one becoming a man... then reason would lead us to assume there would be half-man/monkey's running around who had some of both environments.
But look around you. There is nothing even close to a human other then humans themselves. We are distict and separate, and that is because we were created in God's image. Suprise! I'm telling you, as soon as someone can dispose of their blinding desire to try rid themselves of absolute morality and an absolute Creator, the theory of evolution quickly becomes a pile of monkey shit.