Skip to content

Comments Thread: Evolution vs. Nonsense

November 16, 2009
by

This is the thread specifically for comments on the creationism and evolution conversation.  Some ground rules for clarity’s sake:

1. Please try to avoid using the “reply” button or commenting through email.  Instead, simply use the “comment” button in this thread.  This will preserve the order of the responses.

2. Please do not cut and paste long articles into the comments.  This is the internet; links exist for a reason. If you cut and paste text of reasonable length (probably not more than a paragraph or two), please provide a link or other form of attribution.

3. Go nuts.

 

Thanks.

-The management.

Advertisements
41 Comments leave one →
  1. November 16, 2009 10:37 am

    By your new title you reveal you don’t want debate and are not open. You deliberately suppress the truth. I will keep my eye open for that Dawkins book at Borders and sit and look at his suppression to perhaps “know thy enemy” better. I leave you with a blog of mine from another place, this one for creationists.

    “Look guys. Non-intelligent designers and non-creationists are just mad at God. That’s all. Keep this is mind when debating. The more intimidating the evidence appears, the madder they get. That’s it. Quite simple. They’re licked and ticked. Then they believe they need to be more clever than ever. How sad.”

    “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.”
    Romans 1:18-22

    Why this stance from you anyway? Life is as short as a puff of smoke. Do you think you’ll be remembered for long or rewarded somehow after you die? (which could be any day for any of us) You act as though you are continually trying to justify yourself for now or after death. You have a conscience that is at one moment hit with an accusation; then a conscience that tries to defend itself in this stance of yours, without even knowing that’s what you are doing. If you are open to this truth in your private moments, you will know this is so.

    And I pray for your salvation in Christ. Who knows? Perhaps at that moment you are about to cross the line into eternity you will call on the name of the one who died for you, too; to be forgiven and reconciled to God. But then, perhaps you won’t. Then the door for you will be closed forevermore; even if for you there was a door. Then it’ll be hell, forevermore; consciously.

    However . . . “This is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world (it’s already under condemnation), but that the world should be saved through him. The one who believes in him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God. Now this is the basis for judging: that the light has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil deeds hates the light and does not come to the light, so that their deeds will not be exposed. But the one who practices the truth comes to the light, so that it may be plainly evident that his deeds have been done in God.” John 3:16-21

    • Barry permalink*
      November 16, 2009 11:29 am

      Steve,

      If you were able to provide anything that wasn’t nonsensical in light of what actual scientists have discovered, instead of the aggrieved and hysterical ramblings of people who have never picked up so much as a beaker, I wouldn’t be compelled to characterize creationism as nonsense.

      Am I open to arguments that contradict my beliefs? You betcha. Am I open to apologetics and evangelism wrapped in a tissue of scientific jargon in order to make true believers feel better in light of a world of progress rendered unavailable to them by their allegiance to a stack of fairytales from a couple thousand years ago? No.

      The more you go on, the clearer it becomes that creationists begin with the Bible, do jack shit, and end with the Bible. Guess what? The Bible + jack shit = the Bible.

      If you want to evangelize, knock yourself out, but realize that you will not find me easily deceived into believing in your imaginary friend.

      You suggest that I might be angry with god. I don’t think you understand what atheism is, pastor. I would be happy to explain in great detail what I believe and why I believe it, but you need to understand that being angry with god is as ridiculous a notion to me as being angry with Khan for giving Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock such a hard time. Like Khan, your God is a character from fiction. Church appears to be little more than a weekly Star Trek convention, a place for fanboys to pat one another on the back for having similar taste.

      Quoting Bible passages at me will probably not be effective in winning my “soul” to your god, just like quoting Star Trek lines is a lousy way to make me like science fiction. Is there truth and wisdom in the Bible? Sure, there’s some. But “live long and prosper” is a nice benediction, too.

      Do I think I will be remembered after I die? Sure. By those who love me. But that’s not the point. I am not preoccupied with death or the promise of torture thereafter that Christians like to spook each other with. It’s fiction.

      The Bible uses the generic word “light” to describe both the sun and the moon; clearly it can’t be trusted to reveal much about astronomy. The Christian Bible mistranslates the Hebrew “alma” to mean “virgin” instead of “young girl” and lo! the miracle of Christmas is stumbled into. Is this sloppy hash of Middle Eastern nonsense a worthwhile source of morals, metaphysics, history, and science? It’s embarrassing that anyone would mistake it for as much in the year 2009.

      So look, I am open to refutations of my ideas, but I know the Bible pretty well. I know about salvation by grace through faith. I know what your religion teaches, and I think it’s foolish. You can toss a Psalm right back at me to tell me that I am a fool who hath said in his heart there is no god, and I won’t be impressed. What else should I expect from a self-serving artifact of human history but a passage saying, “if you’re not one of us, you’re stupid”? In the last days there will be scoffers and mockers? That’s not prophetic, it’s point blank acknowledgment that the Bible can only be propagated by creating an insular community with license to feel persecuted in perpetuity.

      If you are beginning to understand how I view Christianity, you’re on the path toward understanding my atheism. What you’re probably missing is that I am simply regarding your religion in the same way you regard every other religion. Do you stay up nights worrying if Ganesha is the true lord of the universe? I doubt it. How about Zoroaster or Allah or Xenu? Probably not. Well, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Islam, and Scientology are exactly as plausible to me as Christianity is. So if you are going to convince me that creationism is anything but an exercise in nonsense, you have to show that its source is worth any consideration whatsoever.

      • November 16, 2009 6:18 pm

        I was thinking you might think well beyond anyone who ever knew you, is no longer on earth, too. So again, why do what you do? Why stand for a cause like going all out to help the poor or feed the hungry or sick children? Because of people like you, more people are not, thus certain suffering goes on too long. Why do I spend time to try and persuade people like you? Because human’s greatest need is to know and understand the Good News of Christ that can pour a love into them that will have greater results than any humanistic love (and don’t give me the bad apple “Christians” from the bottom of the barrel in history as another excuse). The love of the Truth still remains, no matter how imperfect certain Christians, or those not Christians and just say they are and are only religious which you don’t know the difference between anyway.

        No such thing as absolute love without truth. You are deliberately ignorant and lying. Creation evidences are voluminous. You do not understand that the unregenerate human heart is deceitful above all else. You can’t even know your own. True PhD scientists, once evolutionists, are now creationists; and they are in various fields of science. There is at least one who is now a creationist using the same evidences he falsely interpreted before.

        I know they do not have your propensity to lie about origins. In part by the way they speak. You don’t care. You don’t care if Dylan has a code for Christian Truth lovers. You don’t care what the Bible says. You just don’t care, no matter where the Truth or Light leads. You have to see your poverty of spirit (unless you’re completely unable to ever see that) before you can ever come to the Truth. I chatted with your types I don’t know how many times. Perhaps I saw a glimmer of something with you. But with what I just said, and said above………no. Like before.. Maybe someday God will have his way with you. As I said, I pray for your salvation.

        Your clever comments: “a place for fanboys to pat one another on the back for having similar taste” and “”if you’re not one of us, you’re stupid” is exactly what you say. Yes, you are a hypocrite. And more. And you do not understand the Hebrew use of “alma” and do not understand “religion” or why and how the finished work on the cross does away with religion or any other means to justify ones’s conscience before God who is present in this world all the time by His Spirit. You just keep trying to fight Him. The suffering here is of sinful human origins. So, you do not understand the Good News in Christ crucified and risen, alone. That’s how people begin a relationship with God, whether their background is religious or atheistic or anything else.

        You gonna join the ACLU and try to get “In God we trust” erased from places, too? Do you cover your eyes any time you use cash? And, in spite of how you try to mythologize God with other religions, this is the Judeo-Christian God that is meant on the money and many places in DC, and across this free land of ours. He is the one with His biblical truths (not distorted) who had a big role in the hearts of this nation’s founding forefathers. That evidence abounds, too.

        So, back to origins. You said you wanted links? Really? I don’t believe you. But for the sake of others, and maybe, MAYBE, you (but I doubt it); here are some:

        http://crev.info

        http://www.evolutionnews.org

        http://www.lifescienceprize.org/

        http://www.uncommondescent.com

        http://arn.org

        http://www.icr.org/

        http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj

        And of course your nemesis:

        http://www.answersingenesis.org/

      • Barry permalink*
        November 16, 2009 10:41 pm

        Hey Steve – Sorry these didn’t get posted earlier. When an email has several links in it, it gets tagged as spam, and I have to manually approve it.

        As for your screed – whatever, man. You think I am an ignorant liar. If Bob Dylan had a code for Christians, that would be interesting, but again, I don’t see how “I’ve got the pork chop, she’s got the pie, she ain’t no angel and neither am I” or “some young lazy slut has charmed away my brain” or “jump into the wagon love, throw your panties overboard” fits in. I think you are interpreting his lyrics to fit with your preconceptions.

        You’re half right that I don’t care what the Bible says. I think it’s an invaluable historical artifact, but it does not contain metaphysical truths.

        Now stop calling me names.

      • November 16, 2009 11:22 pm

        Well, Jesus named things as he saw them. I know what I was before Christ, and still am but trekking on by His grace. After all, Dawkins calls creation teachers “child abusers” so you can let him know that’s not nice.

        As for the Dylan’s lyrics that appear non-Christian: without excuses, the word is context. Dylan will sing things as they are, or as someone else is thinkin’ em. But in that same song he sings about the one preaching the Word of God and puttin’ out yer eyes! Maybe preaching to that wild character. It’s gotta be the whole song and context for questionable parts.

        And then where Dylan says all those troublesome events are all good in “It’s All Good?” A person can only understand that from a Christian view. Not only does everything work out for good for those who love God and are called according to His purposes, as the Bible says, but God knows all about those unfortunate events and has, in His heart and plans, worked an amazing good thing out of them that is as good as done already! And, because he is a God of pure love, He works things out of bad circumstances in ways that are far better than if the workin’ out had not occurred by Him. Thats how great and awesome and powerful and loving He is. I feel bad that imperfect Christians have distorted that view to you. (like Bodie in that part of the Nazi posting)

        See that’s one of the things folks like you, at least right now, do not understand. God is absolutely pure love. Even to His enemies He took care of our two biggest problems: evil and death. It doesn’t get worse than that. He placed our sins on His own Son on the cross to pay the penalty we all deserve (what greater love could there possibly be?), and since our sin was paid for the penalty could be done away with for us to; namely, death. So, His Son rose, literally, from the grave conquering death for us too. For God to have enemies and do all that for them, would reveal nothing but love while making sure His justice is satisfied, too; on His Son instead of on us. Now, the eternal gift is for all who will only believe from their hearts. At the moment they do, all that work on our behalf is applied to them and we are forgiven, promised perfect resurrection bodies, and heaven where eternal life is real with no more suffering whatsoever.

        And what it really gets down to is Christ’s resurrection, which there is solid proof for, too, and would pass any court beyond a reasonable doubt, and even better. After all, you would be correct, if Christ is not risen from the dead then we Bible believing Christian would be of all people most to be pitied.

        Well, I guess it’s back to our origins in this post.

        Anyway, thanks for posting my posts, even the ones where I kept trying! I hope, and pray, the links are helpful for all the good reasons.

      • November 16, 2009 10:14 pm

        Maybe this will work. Others have not been posting perhaps because you have an auto “block too many URL” attachments or similar? Or some other reason? How about I give you one and just scroll down to the Creation/Evolution links on the lower left of that page? After all, you did say earlier to post a link and not an entire article or words along that line.

        So, here you go. Again, lower left of the page under Creation/Evolution.

        http://www.netword.org/CBC/News_and_Resources.html

  2. November 16, 2009 10:03 pm

    I had posted earlier today but it didn’t make it. Do you know why? Anyway, here you go:

    Creation/Evolution – http://crev.info

    Evolution News – http://www.evolutionnews.org

    Evolutionists Challenged – http://www.lifescienceprize.org/

    Intelligent Design – http://www.uncommondescent.com

    Institute for Creation Research – http://www.icr.org/

    Scientific Research – http://arn.org

    Creation Science – http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj

    And your nemesis:

    Answers In Genesis – http://www.answersingenesis.org/

  3. November 16, 2009 10:06 pm

    I had posed earlier today but it did not post. Do you know why? I changed my info. Maybe that helped. Here you go:

    Creation/Evolution – http://crev.info

    Evolution News – http://www.evolutionnews.org

    Evolutionists Challenged – http://www.lifescienceprize.org/

    Intelligent Design – http://www.uncommondescent.com

    Institute for Creation Research – http://www.icr.org/

    Scientific Research – http://arn.org

    Creation Science – http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj

    And your nemesis:

    Answers In Genesis – http://www.answersingenesis.org/

  4. November 16, 2009 10:17 pm

    Here’s something new out called Darwin’s Eden.

    http://www.themysteriousislands.com/

  5. Pyrcur permalink
    November 16, 2009 11:13 pm

    I’m curious to know who these PhD people you speak of are. Now I don’t know much about the capitalization system that religious people use, but let me give it a shot. So about a month ago, I was attending my Biology lecture at my Respectable Scientific University, and my PhD Lecturer flat-out stated that intelligent design is not a valid scientific theory by any means, especially considering the wealth of Scientific Evidence which is not in line with intelligent design. Now, at said lecture, there were 3 other PhDs in attendance (experts in their fields of biology and ecology), yet nobody in the packed 400 seat lecture hall uttered a peep of contradiction for the entire hour. Oops, sorry, I just realized that you believe that a PhD is an expert in every field nomatter his expertise, focus or scientific background. I’m sure that many religious studies PhDs out there are definitely more knowledgeable and representative of the scientific community than actual doctorates with a legitimately scientific focus. I’m sure that deep down all Biologist’s views are in complete agreement with yours although they are too afraid to document them.

    Here’s an actual question from my poor unenlightened mind. God created earth and all of the various fauna and flora that we do like so very much, yes? Well does the bible say that these species can’t change? Does it say “and then god created drosophila melanogaster and commanded it to eat fruit for all eternity?” I think you’ll find that the word of your lord is not quite as concise as you might think. Could the lord not have created the first primordial strands of RNA, writing into it a tale of the struggle for survival and ultimate rise to dominance of mankind?

    If you manage to refute the above theory through convoluted extremist logic, try this one on for size. “From the rising of the sun to the place where it sets, the name of the lord is to be praised.” (Psalms 113:3)

    • November 16, 2009 11:43 pm

      Oh, who is in a crowd and why. They were probably all like minded, anyway. Or maybe they lacked spine? Who knows! You guys can be scary at times. Maybe one didn’t want to get beat up when he left. I don’t know the setting enough to answer a question like that. The truth is, yes, scientists with PhDs in their respective fields from “big name” universities are out there. You either do not care anyway (which you have alluded to, or said directly), or you would find some crack to criticize about them. You can find them if you want on those links I included, and elsewhere.

      And as for drosophila melanogaster? These can explain much better than I. But your concern is with the creation of bugs altogether? They are amazing little machines, aren’t they. They don’t have souls. Do they experience pain? Probably not. Or can was that proven somewhere. Of course the unborn can and do. Anyway, this link mentions that bug you were concerned about.

      http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/10/31/news-to-note-10312009

  6. Barry permalink*
    November 16, 2009 11:55 pm

    The god of 100% pure love will send a majority of the humans who have existed to an eternity of torture. Nice.

    And Dylan is being sarcastic in “It’s All Good”. Not evangelistic.

    It’s pretty clear that you can’t look at anything without finding confirmation for your beliefs. Except for this blog, I guess. Ha! Glad to give you a little respite.

    • November 17, 2009 12:04 am

      First Dylan. He can speak to Christians without being “evangelistic.” I guess you missed the whole point. But at least it helps me hone my thoughts for others, which makes these posts valuable to me, too.

      And you miss this about God; It is not His desire that any perish, but that all come to repentance. Most will not is not God’s fault. They are sinners who reject the cross and try to self-justify themselves before themselves, God, and others; even in the quiet corners of their lives. God have up His son to atone for their sins; like yours. No sin will be in heaven. So, without Christ’s work on the cross for them, God cannot violate His justice or allow an non-cleansed sinner into His presence. The truth is, there is no one righteous; not even one. That’s why Christ came to same humankind for all who will believe the simple message in Christ crucified and risen. God will give more light to those who respond to light He has already given. But He cannot not and will not violate their free wills. Then they would be robots.

      • Barry permalink*
        November 17, 2009 12:31 am

        If there is no sin in heaven, then your god’s highest plan is for people to lack the free will to sin. So by your “logic”, heaven is full of robots, and earth is full of a bunch of people who will suffer for eternity without the luxury of becoming robots.

        If you can live with that nonsense as your guiding principle, far out. Enjoy it.

      • November 17, 2009 1:09 am

        Sigh.

        Those in heaven will willingly serve God forever. They will know what sin does and what it did and will not want sin anymore. The Bible speaks of God and the Lamb of God (Jesus) being present. We in heaven will know why Jesus will be the Lamb enthroned. He was the sacrificial Lamb for sin. We will have no desire to sin, but only desire to serve and obey God because we will have been perfected in His redeeming love.

        Sin always does harm. Sin rages against God. Sin is war with God. This is why you are at war with God in deliberately denying Him. You will only hate your own small list of sins, but not see sin from God’s perfect standard. Yes, in heaven we will be free; but in such an amazing state that we will be free to enjoy it without temptation to sin at all from this lying world, or a sinful nature within, or the devil or his demons. They will be in that place you are heading.

        Hell is described in more than one way. And no, it is not the cartoonish swimming pool with flames lapping up and people going continually “Ahhh. Ouch, Ohhh. Ouch.” Oh, it will be terrible alright. Like Dylan sings every nook and cranny will have its tears. No escape. Hell is a place of a fire we cannot imagine completely here, but also a place of constant weeping and gnashing of teeth. Weeping, because you will know there is no way out in your rejection of God and Christ; and gnashing of teeth because you will be so angry at God, along with the torment. You will constantly be thinking you don’t deserve to be there (which is what you have been saying), and so your outrage and continued efforts at self justification and warring against God will continue, but to absolutely no avail. And so you will weep, too.

        I do not want you to go there. You do not believe in that place. A major motive of mine in all of this debate is to plant or water seeds, as it were, so that perhaps one day God’s Spirit will use these truths I have shared, along with others in your life you have heard, and draw you, only by His grace, to Himself so you can avoid the hell you presently do not believe exists.

        I don’t know at this point what else to say. I can only say so much, knowing I have done my part, and leave the results in God’s hands for now or in the future.

        I hope you are looking carefully at those several sites and the many areas of scientific validation for creation. I am sure you can probably find a pertinent article, use your find feature, and see what they say about this or that, etc., The point is, the information is there. But you have been deliberately not going to it, with excuses that are false.

  7. Pyrcur permalink
    November 17, 2009 1:10 am

    Dear Mr. Steve,

    Thank you for linking me to that enlightening article. I believe what it ‘s referring to is what us uneducated “science” types like to call a post zygotic isolation mechanism. There are several such mechanisms and they serve to preserve genetic diversity and prevent hybrid zygotes from forming, as the formation of hybrids in these scenarios is unfavorable from an evolutionary standpoint. There are also post zygotic isolation mechanisms which work in other ways, such as in the instance of mules. I’m sure you are familiar with the fact that if you force a male donkey to rape a female horse, the resulting offspring will be a mule. And mules are sterile. Which means that breeding mules and mules will not work at all. Remind me how this disproves evolution?

    As to your sneaky little fetus comment, you might wanna check out this little tidbit I found.
    http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/294/8/947
    Since they use a lot of heathen words, let me summarize for you. The unborn most likely do not feel pain until the third trimester of pregnancy. They say most likely, because they’re scientists and don’t rule anything out, but assuming their bodies behave anything like any of god’s other creations, they might as well be dead!

    In addition, yes, they all are pretty like minded. They are like minded enough to achieve in their studies and get accepted into one of the top universities in the country. They are like minded enough to not accept theories on faith, but instead base them on facts which have been demonstrated time and time again. I guess that makes us eligible for the grand prize: to suffer the wrath of god! I can’t wait, I hear he’s a great guy.

    If you do respond to this post, please proofread a little. Some of your sentences were difficult to follow. (These can explain much better than I; Or can was that proven somewhere.;)

  8. November 17, 2009 1:39 am

    Let me ask: What would it take for you to believe there is a God? Would he have to write across the sky or something similar?

    • Barry permalink*
      November 17, 2009 1:43 am

      Steve, that’s a good question, and I am not certain what the answer is. Interesting to think about, though. My initial thought is that evidence for a supernatural being would have to break some natural law, but there probably could be more circumstantial evidence I would accept.

      • November 17, 2009 1:46 am

        Of course scores of people watched God work supernaturally, and they still rebelled. So, what type of circumstantial evidence would it take?

      • Barry permalink*
        November 17, 2009 1:49 am

        I thought we were talking about me, not scores of people. Anyhow, I assume you’re talking about the Israelites in the wilderness. There is no evidence that Hebrews were slaves in Egypt. There is no evidence of a mass exodus through the desert. Before you make confident declarations about what happened when the Hebrews were in the desert, you really have to support that they were there in the first place.

      • November 17, 2009 2:49 am

        Oh, not just them, but many who saw or heard of Jesus and the Apostles performing miracles, too.

        So, you will not accept historical records verified more than accounts many people believe of other historical figures. You will not believe a supernatural expression of God is possible. And even if you did see one, it would not change your heart and mind. You are committed to a materialistic view of everything, even where things have not been proven but you believe they have been. (Please, there would be so many to count.)

        Would you be willing to view a relatively brief message from my Alma Mater, Dallas Theological Seminary? It is from around Sept. of 2005 by Henry Morris III. He actually recounts at least one famous “Christian” who became an atheist, like you, and the process involved. And he cites one or more big guns of science you may very well know of. It’s about 27 minutes. So, if you are willing here is the link to the message.

        http://www.dts.edu/media/play/?MediaItemID=45ad0617-b9ad-4d37-bd96-3589c8360fad

      • Barry permalink*
        November 17, 2009 10:45 am

        I am about to watch the Morris sermon, but I wanted to comment on something you said.

        The Bible is no more a historical record than Gone With the Wind. Let’s say an alien found Gone With the Wind, and wanted to determine if it was fictional or not. If she looked it up, the alien would find that the civil war was real, he would find that there were indeed plantations in Georgia, and there were indeed blockade runners.

        That does not mean that Tara was a real plantation or that Rhett was a real blockade runner.

        The Bible certainly has some legit history in it, there’s no denying that. However, so many of its accounts are not borne out by the evidence (the exodus) or most likely cannot be confirmed or falsified by evidence (the binding of Isaac) that it should be evident that it’s not a trustworthy historical document.

        The Bible has not been verified nearly as well as you claim.

      • Barry permalink*
        November 17, 2009 11:28 am

        If I learned anything from the Morris talk, it’s that Billy Graham didn’t want to entertain the possibility that he could be wrong.

        You keep calling me ignorant and closed minded, but you seem to admit that anything that contradicts what you believe is prima facie unacceptable. But you throw around the word hypocrite like it applies to anyone but you.

        On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Barry wrote:

        > I am about to watch the Morris sermon, but I wanted to comment on something > you said. > > The Bible is no more a historical record than Gone With the Wind. Let’s > say an alien found Gone With the Wind, and wanted to determine if it was > fictional or not. If she looked it up, the alien would find that the civil > war was real, he would find that there were indeed plantations in Georgia, > and there were indeed blockade runners. > > That does not mean that Tara was a real plantation or that Rhett was a real > blockade runner. > > The Bible certainly has some legit history in it, there’s no denying that. > However, so many of its accounts are not borne out by the evidence (the > exodus) or most likely cannot be confirmed or falsified by evidence (the > binding of Isaac) that it should be evident that it’s not a trustworthy > historical document. > > The Bible has not been verified nearly as well as you claim. > >

      • November 17, 2009 8:23 pm

        No evidence will change you. The evidence is in the creation present. The heavens above, the machinery in one cell, the beauty and design that you will not acknowledge in so many things seen. All expressions of God’s eternal power and divine nature. At judgment you will have no excuse. God is not obligated to tell you how he did it. It is just there, and evidence an intelligent Creator exists. You will have none of it. Even if more were revealed, you still would not understand the truth. It is just like Jesus taught: “All who are for the truth will hear my voice.” You cannot hear Him or ultimate truth. If you ever were, it would solely be a miraculous work of God. After all, no one can come to Him unless Jesus draws them to God. In other words, unless the Truth draws them, and Jesus is the Truth and the way and the life and no one comes to God but through Him because of who He is and His finished work on the cross and His resurrection.

        So then, there are volumes of works available, but you will deliberately choose not to look for them. I came to your site; you did not come to mine. I tried with God’s help to persuade, but again, by the very title of this post, your mind is already darkened.

        I pray God’s mercy will be yours before you die someday. He can do no more for your forgiveness than what the cross accomplished for any who believe.

        I will move away from this site now and perhaps find elsewhere those who can be persuaded with both evident and spiritual Truth. I can at least plant the seeds or do some watering and trust God to do the harvesting of believing hearts. Christ certainly changed mine, the living water flowed, His love proved amazing, and his unmerited favor (grace) completely sufficient for my justification before God for time and eternity. I am very thankful to God for what my great Savior and Creator has done for me. All honor and praise and blessing and thanksgiving from me rightfully goes to Him. He has enabled me to be bound to righteousness and have the perception to reject any practice of sin. All by His grace. That is my desire, too.

      • Korbie permalink
        November 18, 2009 1:21 am

        So you’ve never even read the books on evolution then? And here you are saying that we are closed minded and ignorant. We do have knowledge of what you guys say, because we’re familiar with your arguments already. I haven’t seen you refute much of ours at all.

        Most of what you say are logical fallacies. No, the naturalistic world is not evidence of a creator. The naturalistic world is evidence that a naturalistic world exists, and that’s it.

        Let’s put up a hypothetical situation here that Sam Harris put up in his book The End of Faith. Imagine if everyone suddenly loses all of their memory. So now we have a ton of religious books lying around. We have no idea which one is potentially correct. What are the odds that we’d accept Christianity given that the number of books available are the same for every single religion on the planet? In my view, they’d all sound like nonsense. In the case of Christianity, it would sound like copied nonsense considering the amount of plagiarism involved.

        What I’m getting at here is that truth should be discoverable again and again. I would bet the universe that science can be discovered again and again, yet the same cannot be said of Christianity.

        The problem you have is that you have already thought that Christianity is true and then you deductively reason why it is true. Anything true, I would say, should only be made through inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning being that you are only given the evidence. After that, you can then make up your mind. Evolution by natural selection manifested itself through this process, and eventually the evidence kept piling on. What they would teach you about evolution in schools is the evidence that eventually led up to the theory.

        I cannot say the same for Christianity. Christianity is mostly indoctrinated to children by simply saying that it’s true. This is what they learn first. They don’t learn the evidence, they’re just told that it’s true. Everything that you then learn reaffirms the your belief and anything that does not adhere to it is simply thrown away. You still have absolutely no idea how evolution works. It’s an extremely simple naturalistic process that in no way requires a god.

        If you were not Christian, you would not say your evidence would logically lead you to God. After all, if this were true, I would think that at least some people would think similarly in those far away countries where Christianity has never reached them, wouldn’t you say? Again, I bet the universe that if any person was given the entirety of the huge bodies of evidence for evolution, they would easily come up with the same answer, that is the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

        The problem in your case is that you refuse to look at the evidence. What you want to do is what you want to do, but don’t you want to see if you might be wrong? It takes a humble man to admit that he’s wrong, and isn’t that what your Jesus Christ taught you?

        Also, don’t bother throwing those prayers at us. It’s insulting. You’re pretty much saying that we’re evil and that we’re all going to hell. Great. I hope to see the rest of my fellow Atheists there. Better than serving your God for infinity plus years accomplishing absolutely nothing. Heck, if one wanted to do that, they can just do drugs all their life.

      • November 17, 2009 8:01 pm

        If you really want more evidence for various biblical events, you could find it through publications. But there would never be enough to change your mind. You are committed to materialism and cannot allow God a foot in the door. Some of your big guns have said as much.

      • Pyrcur permalink
        November 17, 2009 2:11 am

        Maybe a book that is unrivaled by any of its counterparts in terms of accuracy and logic. Currently that book that you keep toting about isn’t the most factual or concise one out there. I’m not asking it to predict the future, but when any outdated textbook I have on my shelf contains more factual information about the tickings of the universe than does the book on which you so heavily rely for spiritual guidance, it doesn’t provide a strong case for Christianity.

  9. Jonathan permalink
    November 17, 2009 5:51 am

    Steve,

    I meant to comment on our discussion about lying but have been busy.

    Anyway, in Genesis chapter 27, Jacob fulfills God’s plan, which is outlined in an earlier chapter, by lying to his father Isaac.

    In Genesis chapter 2, God attempts to scare Adam from eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil by lying to him, and saying that he will die if he eats it.

    The quote from Isaiah you gave refers specifically to the lie of denying ones faith, not to lies in general.

    I am not familiar with the NT enough to really comment on the rest, but Colossians refers to Christians being open with one another, and so has nothing to do with the nazi quesion Barry asked, as nazis were not christian.

  10. Jonathan permalink
    November 17, 2009 5:54 am

    Steve,

    I meant to comment on our discussion about lying but have been busy.

    Anyway, in Genesis chapter 27, Jacob fulfills God’s plan, which is outlined in an earlier chapter, by lying to his father Isaac.

    In the bible, heroes such as Jacob are held to a higher moral standard than the rest of us. If he can lie, it’s OK.

    In Genesis chapter 2, God attempts to scare Adam from eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil by lying to him, and saying that he will die if he eats it.

    If God can lie to his children in order to get them to behave, then it’s OK.

    The quote from Isaiah you gave refers specifically to the lie of denying ones faith, not to lies in general.

    I am not familiar with the NT enough to really comment on the rest of the verses you cited, but Colossians refers to Christians being open with one another, and so has nothing to do with the nazi quesion Barry asked, as nazis were not christian.

  11. Korbie permalink
    November 18, 2009 1:21 am

    So you’ve never even read the books on evolution then? And here you are saying that we are closed minded and ignorant. We do have knowledge of what you guys say, because we’re familiar with your arguments already. I haven’t seen you refute much of ours at all.

    Most of what you say are logical fallacies. No, the naturalistic world is not evidence of a creator. The naturalistic world is evidence that a naturalistic world exists, and that’s it.

    Let’s put up a hypothetical situation here that Sam Harris put up in his book The End of Faith. Imagine if everyone suddenly loses all of their memory. So now we have a ton of religious books lying around. We have no idea which one is potentially correct. What are the odds that we’d accept Christianity given that the number of books available are the same for every single religion on the planet? In my view, they’d all sound like nonsense. In the case of Christianity, it would sound like copied nonsense considering the amount of plagiarism involved.

    What I’m getting at here is that truth should be discoverable again and again. I would bet the universe that science can be discovered again and again, yet the same cannot be said of Christianity.

    The problem you have is that you have already thought that Christianity is true and then you deductively reason why it is true. Anything true, I would say, should only be made through inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning being that you are only given the evidence. After that, you can then make up your mind. Evolution by natural selection manifested itself through this process, and eventually the evidence kept piling on. What they would teach you about evolution in schools is the evidence that eventually led up to the theory.

    I cannot say the same for Christianity. Christianity is mostly indoctrinated to children by simply saying that it’s true. This is what they learn first. They don’t learn the evidence, they’re just told that it’s true. Everything that you then learn reaffirms the your belief and anything that does not adhere to it is simply thrown away. You still have absolutely no idea how evolution works. It’s an extremely simple naturalistic process that in no way requires a god.

    If you were not Christian, you would not say your evidence would logically lead you to God. After all, if this were true, I would think that at least some people would think similarly in those far away countries where Christianity has never reached them, wouldn’t you say? Again, I bet the universe that if any person was given the entirety of the huge bodies of evidence for evolution, they would easily come up with the same answer, that is the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

    The problem in your case is that you refuse to look at the evidence. What you want to do is what you want to do, but don’t you want to see if you might be wrong? It takes a humble man to admit that he’s wrong, and isn’t that what your Jesus Christ taught you?

    Also, don’t bother throwing those prayers at us. It’s insulting. You’re pretty much saying that we’re evil and that we’re all going to hell. Great. I hope to see the rest of my fellow Atheists there. Better than serving your God for infinity plus years accomplishing absolutely nothing. Heck, if one wanted to do that, they can just do drugs all their life.

  12. November 18, 2009 4:26 am

    “So you’ve never even read the books on evolution then?”
    Oh I have been reading what both sides say for years. And I look forward to picking up and sitting down with Dawkins newest and having a laugh. This so-called scientist (as in true knowledge) who essentially calls us child abusers. Ugly.

    “I would think that at least some people would think similarly in those far away countries where Christianity has never reached them.”
    There are some amazing stories. They received the light God gave, and God brought them under more light.

    “The problem in your case is that you refuse to look at the evidence. What you want to do is what you want to do, but don’t you want to see if you might be wrong? It takes a humble man to admit that he’s wrong, and isn’t that what your Jesus Christ taught you?”
    Yes, it is. And you are not a humble man. Let’s see. That quote sounds like someone writing to you. But for Jesus being yours, of course.

    “You’re pretty much saying that we’re evil and that we’re all going to hell. Great. I hope to see the rest of my fellow Atheists there.”
    That is what all humans are and so Christ had to die to save us. And hell? Oh it will not be a party. Guaranteed.

    “Better than serving your God for infinity plus years accomplishing absolutely nothing.”
    No, there will be a brand new earth, quite large, with a huge and amazingly beautiful city about the size of a third to half of the U. S. And the gates will never be closed to an entirely new heavens. There will be much to explore in bodies that will never die and we will never want to lie or sin again. We’ll be so free it’s unimaginable in this pitiful fallen world with distortions abounding. If Carl Sagan essentially said your earth is so puny and insignificant and your life is about as long as a puff of smoke, why this cause of yours? You don’t have to try and answer that. You can’t.

  13. Barry permalink*
    November 18, 2009 9:24 am

    Steve,

    Do you believe that new stars form?

    • November 18, 2009 6:11 pm

      I think I know what you are asking. Even evolutionary scientists disagree on what is seen or not seen in various fields. Take the recent interpretations about the water or water elements discovered on the moon. One could ask: Do you believe there are underground reservoirs or massive ice slabs beneath the moon’s surface? Hmmmmmmmmm? They disagree. As to what is seen in, is it the Eagle Nebula or similar? Who really knows what is going on there. Again, I would bet “whatever” that there are evolutionary scientists who disagree on at least a point or two on that. Do they know what quasars are? No. But they often like to think they know. The Bible does say that star differs from star in glory, perhaps even ones hidden in gaseous clouds. There are all kinds of amazing things in the heavens that look like this or look like that. Has anyone seen the process of star formation from start to finish? Of course you know the answer. But you can find different interpretations from scientists on what they see in this area. All I know is what I see is the glory of God in the heavens in all manner of design and beauty and artistry. But, much closer to home, scientists are still trying to figure out our sun, yes, and in significant aspects, much less how it formed, because they were not there for one thing. Not repeatable. Not falsifiable. As in true scientific investigation. They, like you, will believe or not believe what you deliberately decide on and a number of you will not allow God a foot in the door by ay means.

      • Barry permalink*
        November 18, 2009 7:06 pm

        So is your answer “no”?

      • November 18, 2009 8:36 pm

        You are loaded and cocked and ready to pull it, aren’t you.

        This is actually a good exercise for me, but like I indicated, I don’t know how much longer. Only God can persuade you about himself once someone like me has done what I can. Otherwise, all of this could go on “forever” and I actually do have more important things to do and others I could find to talk to who may listen.

        And, before I forget, you really should change the name of this blog to “evolution vs. creation.” Your present title is quite immature, don’t you think? If not, then anything I give you is already non-sense to you, correct? Which would then mean you are wasting your time and should be doing other more sensible things, right? Or who are you trying to impress?!

        I am sure you believe those stars are forming, since how you will read things fits only a naturalistic origin; big bang, etc. (It’s funny. One of the biggest, if not the biggest “proof” you all have for your big bang is the small little telescope shaped like a big shoe horn, or old fashioned gramophone or old fashioned hearing aid, where they had to clean off all the bird poo to get it to work to their liking and they used that to interpret some “all over the place” sort of signal they wanted to believe was from the big pop.) Sound like childish thinking? Well, just think about it.

        God can do anything He wants anywhere in the heavens He wants. If it were happening, it would be really, really, slow, right? But evolutionary scientists often assume the dust disk formed at about the same time as the star, though astronomers were not present to observe such events in the past. And why couldn’t gases simply be seen as driven out from the stars or as being pulled into the stars? You don’t know. But you believe what you will.

        There are always other possibilities that scientists with evolutionary assumptions do not consider. Disks (and clouds) of gas and dust could have been created when the stars were created, just several thousand years ago. The dust disks dissipate over time, and today, astronomers studying these disks find that the disks do not always fit their models. Recent research on dust disks has turned up examples of stars that according to accepted ideas of stellar evolution are old, yet they are observed to have extensive dust disks. George Rieke from the University of Arizona has recently commented on this problem, “We thought young stars, about 1 million years old, would have larger, brighter discs, and older stars from 10 to 100 million years old would have fainter ones . . . But we found some young stars missing discs and some old stars with massive discs.” Evolutionary scientists would expect that in millions of years, dust very near the star would be driven away or would be vaporized.

        So, a question raised is why have the dust particles close to the star not evaporated when it is more than hot enough to vaporize them. This suggests the disks are very young indeed. To evolutionary scientists, the dust grains near the star would be perhaps hundreds of thousands to millions of years old. Over those kinds of time scales the dust could not still be so close to the star unless something keeps it from being too hot, e.g., gas shielding the dust from the star’s light. (or your undiscovered dark matter, perhaps) This is an example of how scientists assume processes they have not observed are at work in order to explain how the observed dust could still be present. Instead, why not consider the star and the disks to be only several thousand years old, then many of the difficulties of explaining the dust disks disappear.

        Then the problem of gas tending to expand, and not contract. And if it could contract, it would start spinning faster and faster. The spinning would stop a cloud of hydrogen gas to collapse any further. This would tend to stop the collapse before any star could form on its own. But you have to assume it can happen. You believe that stars do form but there are many problems with this idea.

        And with that, this from Dr. Jason Lisle, an astrophysicist from the U. of Colorado at Boulder:

        “Although virtually all secular astronomers believe that stars form spontaneously, the physics behind this alleged process is riddled with difficulties. According to the standard model of star formation, stars form from a collapsing nebula. However, when gas is compressed, it heats up. This higher temperature creates extra pressure which resists further compression. The collapse would have a tendency to stop before the star ever formed. Furthermore, a collapsing cloud would spin faster as it collapsed. This is much the same way a skater spins up as she pulls her arms in. As the cloud spins faster, it becomes increasingly difficult to pull material in further: much as weights held at arm’s length are difficult to pull closer when one is spinning. Even if the star were able to form by pulling in the material, it would be spinning extremely rapidly. A small percentage of stars do spin rapidly, but most do not. The sun takes about 25 days to rotate once at its equator.

        There is also a problem with magnetic fields. The intrinsic (weak) magnetic field of the collapsing nebula would become intensified as the cloud collapsed; the process “concentrates” the magnetic field. The magnetic field would then resist being compressed further—much like trying to push two magnets together when their like poles are facing each other. Gas pressure, angular momentum, and magnetic fields all work against the possibility of a condensing star. Clearly, the secular view that stars can form naturalistically has some serious problems. From a creationist point of view, stars need not form at all. God made the stars (Genesis 1:14–16) during the creation week; they were supernaturally created.

        Secular astronomers hope that future evidence will resolve these serious scientific problems, but not having enough evidence is not the real issue; it’s the interpretation of existing evidence that is the problem. With these severe scientific problems (only a few of which have been discussed), should we not at least consider the possibility that the naturalistic worldview is wrong? This incorrect worldview has led to incorrect interpretations of the evidence, which then require further conjectures to allow the evidence to fit within the defective worldview. When we start from a biblical worldview, we find that none of the above issues are problems. On the contrary, they are assets. The seamless blend of uniformity and diversity that we observe in the created universe is a mark of the God of the Bible.”

        So, my answer is: there is no scientific evidence they do. And, no.

        But let me ask you two questions: Do you believe matter (not talking about the big bang) just popped or came out of nothing on its own?

        Do you believe that first living cell formed with “no intelligence allowed?” (I figure you have seen the movie.)

      • November 18, 2009 8:54 pm

        In fact, I am not going any further here at all, unless you change the name to “Evolution vs. Creation” or “Evolution vs. Intelligent Design.” Just following the logic I gave you toward the top of my last post. You don’t want to be the one appearing illogical, do you? You, and many like you as the message from Dr. Morris in Dallas explained, probably don’t care anyway. But I do. And, as explained before, I care about you, too.

      • Barry permalink*
        November 18, 2009 10:11 pm

        Thanks for your answer, Steve.

      • November 18, 2009 10:37 pm

        You’re welcome. I hope it helped.

      • Barry permalink*
        November 18, 2009 10:42 pm

        It sure did. I appreciate your candor and willingness to discuss your beliefs.

  14. November 18, 2009 10:49 pm

    Thank you.

    • Barry permalink*
      November 18, 2009 11:09 pm

      So, Steve – You must know that the general consensus among astronomers and astrophysicists takes into account the cosmic microwave background radiation, the speed of light, the size of the universe, and the expansion of space in order to arrive at the big bang model. Similarly, astronomers in the fields of high energy physics and nuclear physics consider gamma ray bursts, novae, supernovae, gravitational effects and countless other types of data in order to explain the life cycles of stars and other celestial objects and events.

      Without getting into the data or the fact that you can point to a few creationists who claim to understand astronomy better than the lion’s share of academics, why do you think that these working scientists are so wrong? Are they stupid? Liars? What do they have to gain by being wrong? Do you think that they don’t second-guess whatever operative paradigms they have been instructed in?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: