Posted by: Jim | April 17, 2009

Just Because Evolution is True Doesn’t Mean it isn’t Creepy

hairless_chimpThe picture is of a chimp who is not healthy, and has lost most of his hair.

I’m often impressed with how human-seeming the chimps and gorillas are at the zoo, but this … this is almost disturbing.

It’s so easy to see how we are related.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. yes evolution is creepy, but why so much faith that it is true?

  2. Where’s Laura?

    Jim Mac – you are a retard. It’s not “faith” in evolution, it’s a solid belief that it is, as of now, the theory that best explains the development of life on Earth.

    If you are going to conjoin scientific beliefs, based upon empirical observation, not upon Holy Books or superstition, by using the word “faith” to accomplish the establishment of such an equivalence, then you have, my slow-witted friend, engaged in a language-game, that is all.

  3. ok, in some way or another you have faith that it is true. there is NO proof that we come from monkeys or that 2 billion years ago particles jumped on the backs of other particles that in some way created water that created the world we live in. somewhere it had to start. And you nor anyone else in the evolution world can explain that “start”. but yet you have faith that it happened and accuse those of “faith” that they are dumb. It takes more faith to believe that you came from a monkey than to believe you were created by an almighty God.

  4. also, you ever wonder why evolution scientists can NEVER agree on the age of the earth? and every year it ages about 20 million years?

  5. Jim Mac, just because you ignore the overwhelming amount of evidence–and observed and repeated PROOF that speciation occurs, does not mean it doesn’t exist.

    Jim, it’s really strange that you say it requires “faith” for me to believe that water exists–yet that is what you are saying. It may be true that I don’t know how molecules originally formed, but why does that require faith? Water exists. That is no statement of faith. YOU claim that water was made by God. THAT requires faith. Faith is believing in something when there is no evidence. My choice to NOT believe in something does not require faith–yet you say it does.

    It’s a hilarious jaunt into the world of WTF.

    Jim Mac … what about science threatens you so badly? Why can’t you accept the overwhelming amount of evidence that evolution is true? Seriously … examine yourself and ask why you insist on thrusting your head into the sand.

    My theory: the truth terrifies you. You are frightened that your Biblical-centered universe will be thrown into chaos if you choose to stop ignoring the evidence and realize that the world IS indeed older than 6 thousand years, and that the world WASN’T created in 6 days.

  6. By the way I don’t think you’re dumb. I think you are willfully ignorant, which is much worse.

  7. “It takes more faith to believe that you came from a monkey than to believe you were created by an almighty God.”

    We don’t come from monkeys, we have a common ancestor. If you can’t see any similarities between a monkey and a human being, then well done, that’s the triumph of faith over reason right there.

    It actually does not require faith to believe in evolution. As I pointed out, you are using belief in a scientific theory that is built upon millions of man hours of fieldwork, analysis and commentary and comparing this to an unfalsifiable belief (ie: faith) in a Supreme Being. The two are not comparable, but you are too dense, clearly, to be able to comprehend this simple distinction.

    I do believe, finally, that it is only a language game, that centres on the erroneous equation of science with religion, ie: science as actually a faith, that is causing 99% of this dissonance. Jim Mac’s position might be true if scientists proceeded without Evidence and without submitting their theories to Criticism, etc., if they had a Big Book of Science that they pointed to and said, “That’s it”

    If scientists thought like religious folks, they’d have stopped with Newton and considered the universe fully explained. Newton revealed more about the workings of the universe than the Bible.

  8. Jim and kingfelix,

    well its interesting Newton is brought up, from Newton himself:
    ‘This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. … This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called “Lord God” παντοκρατωρ [pantokratòr], or “Universal Ruler”. … The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect.’2

    ‘Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.’3

    ‘I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.’

    Yet Newton used science. You see science corresponds with the Bible not against it. You see both you the evolutionist and me the creationist both have the same exact evidence. We both same earth, same fossil layers, same moon, starts, sun, all the facts are the same. The reason we have a hard time “debating” is because we have our “presuppositions”. Mine to creation yours to evolution. We need to stop worrying about the evidence and our “slow-wittedness” and debate more so on our presuppositions. Your presuppositions are based on well, no god, and mine are based upon God. The thing is we look at science with totally different glasses on but as I can put on your glasses you can’t put on mine. To put on mine you would have to accept God as creator and the Bible, which my guess you believe to be rubbish. Evolutionists start with nothing and make something. Creationists start with a book that 1. claims to be the Word of God and 2. tells us how the world began. Thats pretty cool. And one can’t argue that the Bible isn’t accurate. At the least you’d have to give that it is a very well written history book. Yes it corresponds with history. The flood for example, we know that at one point there was a world wide flood. We have scientific evidence and historical evidence. You see while evolutionists start with nothing they make something, hence why the earth changes millions or billions of years every year because there is no way of knowing. The beginning for an evolutionist is full of pure guess and pure possibilities. Well maybe a particle jumped on the back on another particle that was then moved by some type of cosmic plasma that came from…. there is suddenly no where to go b/c its all guesses. With the Bible there’s no guesses on how we got here. To believe in six literal days makes more sense than to believe we were accidentally created with no purpose over 30 billion years! Now that the presuppositions are out of the way. I apologize for the length lol.

    How do you explain red blood cells and hemoglobin being found in the bones of T-Rex’s? If the assumed bone was 65 million years old, how could 1. the bone not decompose and 2. red blood cells and hemoglobin still be able to be traced? How could blood cells survive that long?

    Thanks for taking the time to read and discuss. Once again sorry for the length.

  9. “Evolutionists start with nothing”

    Stop right there. The theory of evolution starts with the entire natural world, not with ‘nothing’.

    You see, debating something requires more than writing things down that sound good to you.

    If you are going to attempt to construct an argument, you will need to do much better than this.

    I will give you a clue, though. You are going along the wrong lines. Your actual problem is not whether evolution is compatible with God, with a Maker. That is unknowable, I don’t presume to know the answer to that. The problem is your insistence that the Bible represents an accurate account of God and the Creation of the world, and that therefore evolution is unacceptable to you, ie: we could be sat here having the opposite argument if the Bible described evolution and science disputed it, ie: for you the Bible is the source of truth, period, regardless of empirical observation that counters such a fact. On that level, you should still be insisting that the Sun goes around the Earth.

    If you wanted to posit that the Bible was wrong, but that God is still the Creator, I don’t think there’d be an argument to be had.

  10. Also, that was a CTRL+V job with that long paragraph. You can read through Ted’s post, and we’ve already had the cut-and-paste passages.

    Please note that your habit of starting sentences with lower case letters disappears for the entire duration of the paragraph I highlight as likely being not your own. That’s just the thing though, you are writing from a standpoint that sees merit in the simple repetition of the words / thoughts of others, rather than valuing/developing your own critical skills and ideas.

    But by all means keep posting your stuff from ‘How to argue with atheists.com’ or whatever, just remember that we’re not as credulous as your usual associates.

  11. Okay 1. I’m not simply copying and pasting, I’ve written every word there. 2. I am using my own ideas while including things from other places but I have never cut and pasted. There would be no point in me arguing. I would just send you to another site. 3. I apologize for the lowercase and uppercase thing, I almost, I’m being honest went through and looked for those. Because I do so many casual posts on other sites/ casual emails I am used to writing in lowercase. But like I said NEITHER of us have refuted anything the other has said, only argued presuppositions.

  12. “But like I said NEITHER of us have refuted anything the other has said, only argued presuppositions.”

    Nothing can refute your unverifiable claims for the literal truth of the Bible.

    Where are the presuppositions in the theory of evolution? That God does not exist? No. That the Bible is not true? No. That the systematic investigation of the natural world can increase human knowledge? Yes, but so…

    If you can point to an equivalence of faith for concluding, in light of the evidence, that evolution is how species developed on Earth, then point to it. Otherwise, stop using long words that are not referring to anything concrete.

    Evolution was the end result of an inquiry into the natural world, not something that was stated first and then the evidence forced to fit the theory. It is not as if Darwin sat there altering the shape of bird beaks to convince the world he was right.

    Answer the simple question, if the Bible mentioned dinosaurs and no fossil record existed of them – would you still believe in dinosaurs? Answer : Of course you would.

  13. OK I’m jumping in a bit late here, but I’d like to respond to a few things you said Jim Mac.

    1. Science refutes many things in the Bible and does not correspond with it. The Bible says the earth does not move, for example. I can quote at least five scriptures that says it. Do you think the earth is stationary and that the universe is revolving around us? The Bible offers an extremely unscientific, bronze age view of the universe.

    2. With regard to glasses. I do agree that people tend to simply build upon whatever presuppositions they might have. That is certainly true in your case. However, when you say that I am unable to put your glasses on, you are entirely wrong. I was a born again fundamentalist Christian from age 10 until I was 33 years old. The thing about thinking clearly Jim Mac is that it means you take the glasses OFF. When I did that–removed all presuppositions–I examined the facts and came to believe in evolution. I never had the presupposition of “no god” … I concluded that there was no god after removing all other presuppositions. I’m not 100% sure there is no god–how could I be? But I’m pretty sure.

    Clear thinking takes courage more than intelligence. Have you ever had the courage to take off your glasses Jim Mac?

    3. One CAN argue that the Bible isn’t accurate. I can, and I can do it pretty well. Do you really want to have that argument? Let me just state this flatly: the Bible isn’t accurate. There’s my premise, now I challenge you to attack it. 🙂

    4. You are right when you say that the very beginning is “all guesses.” There’s currently no proof of how it all started. But you are guessing as well when you say that it was all created in 6 days about 6 thousand years ago. The difference is that MY guess is founded on available evidence and is complementary to it. YOUR guess is completely contradictory to all known scientific fact about the origin of the universe. Your guess, however, makes you feel good.

    Again … it comes down to courage Jim Mac. Do you have the courage to accept a universe that doesn’t make you feel as good as the one where there’s a big strong God in charge?

    Also, let me posit this: if you had been born in Pakistan, and you had approached truth the same way you currently do, you would be defending the Quran’s version of the universe right now.

  14. kingfelix I noticed in an earlier post you said,

    “Stop right there. The theory of evolution starts with the entire natural world, not with ‘nothing’.”

    So the natural world always was? What was before the natural world?

  15. Jim,

    1. Please if you would show me the scriptures.
    2. Jim were you really born again? or just blindly following what you had been taught thus when you removed your glasses you had no ground to stand upon? Instead of taking the science to the Bible, you took the Bible to science. Science became your “truth”. I start with the Bible, as a born again Christian I must. I believe that In the beginning God… (Gen 1:1) It starts with Him. BUT science does give evidence to creation. While I can in no way just get rid of the Bible there are scientists all over the world that are not christians that do believe in a literal creation. I know you probably despise Ben Stein’s “No Intelligence Allowed” but that showed real scientists that are being quieted about creation science. Interesting that they are being quieted. Christians are always looked upon as the non-tolerant when its quite the opposite. Especially when it comes to education. Evolution is a non-proven theory, it can’t be proven. Richard Dawkins if taken to the very core would have to say this. David Pilbeam, a Harvard University paleoanthropologist, says regarding human evolution:
    “If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we’ve got he’d surely say, “forget it; there isn’t enough to go on.””

    3. That might be a fun debate. How bout we bring that debate over to my blog? Its a Christian theology blog I just started with some friends. Let me know and we can set it up. We literally just started it so that might be a fun way to kick it off.

    4. The thing is your guess is founded upon “evidence” looked upon in your glasses upon your presuppositions. I mean at least I have a book that claims to be the Word of God that claims to show the beginning and has stood the test of time.
    While your “evidence” shows something to be billions of years old it very well could be under 6,000 yrs old. Take a look;

    “The various age-dating methods are also subject to interpretation. All dating methods suffer, in principle, from the same limitations—whether they are used to support a young world or an old world. For instance, the public reads almost daily in newspapers and magazines that scientists have dated a particular rock at billions of years old. Most just accept this. However, creation scientists have learned to ask questions as to how this date was obtained—what method was used and what assumptions were accepted to develop this method? These scientists then question those assumptions (questions) to see whether they are valid and to determine whether the rock’s age could be interpreted differently. Then the results are published to help people understand that scientists have not proven that the rock is billions of years old and that the evidence can be interpreted in a different way to support a young age.

    Consider the research from the creationist RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) concerning the age of zircon crystals in granite.3 Using one set of assumptions, these crystals could be interpreted to be around 1.5 billion years old based on the amount of lead produced from the decay of uranium (which also produces helium). However, if one questions these assumptions, one is motivated to test them. Measurements of the rate at which helium is able to “leak out” of these crystals indicate that if they were much older than about 6,000 years, they would have nowhere near the amount of helium still left in them. Hence, the originally applied assumption of a constant decay rate is flawed; one must assume, instead, that there has been acceleration of the decay rate in the past. Using this revised assumption, the same uranium-lead data can now be interpreted to also give an age of fewer than 6,000 years.” (from Answers in Genesis).

    Well because I wasn’t born in Pakistan I don’t find this to be a pertinent question BUT if I had been I’d like to think that somewhere down the line I would become a born again Christian. I mean that question is the same as asking if I had been born in Colombia would I be a drug smuggler. No way to know. Maybe if I was born in Pakistan I would have been adopted and brought to the US and still become a Christian and we’d still be having this conversation no matter what. 🙂

  16. “While your “evidence” shows something to be billions of years old it very well could be under 6,000 yrs old. Take a look;”

    http://www.gemini.edu/node/73

    6,000 years. Right… Not even close.

    ***

    “Stop right there. The theory of evolution starts with the entire natural world, not with ‘nothing’.”

    So the natural world always was? What was before the natural world?

    Are you being wilfully disingenuous? You said that evolution starts with nothing, when, clearly, it begins with the natural world. How you then construe this to be a question about what was before the natural world, can’t you process information in a rational way? Besides, regardless of your holy book, you are in EXACTLY the same position, the dark, regarding what lay / and lies beyond existence, it is just that you choose to submit yourself to this text in the face of growing evidence of its inaccuracies. Good for you. I could make my way through life using the rules of the Federation as a moral guide, but it wouldn’t make those rules true, regardless of how efficacious I may find them. You can’t simultaneously deride a position that takes in the empirical evidence gathered by science, when your own source of belief has nothing but words to support it.

    I have already stated, repeatedly, that on the subject of the origin of the universe, etc, nothing can be said, God is not refuted. I have stated, repeatedly, for the benefit of your small mind, that it is THE BIBLE that is the focus of your total defensiveness re: evolution.

    I mentioned Newton for the very good reason that he believed in God, as did Darwin, BUT was not a slave to ‘biblical truth’ as you are. That argument was lost hundreds of years ago, with the death of Giordano Bruno, with the attempts to silence Galileo. But here you are, with your ‘differing interpretations’ that, remarkably, prove your faith-based premise time after time. These people even conceded ‘micro-evolution’ of bacteria as a means of at once acknowledging the truth while simultaneously attempting to immunise its broader implications.

    The Gemini page has observations of events that happened 200 million years ago. Not 6000. But I am sure that your fabulist friends have found some way of disputing that. Perhaps the speed of light was altered by the deity at some point…

  17. Okay kingfelix your attacking me does not help your argument.

    1. With my Holy Book it tells me of the beginning; In the beginning God (Genesis 1:1)… you still have nothing but guesses of the beginning. Somewhere along the line something must have been created. You’d have to at least admit that.

    2. Words of Isaac Newton:

    “A Heavenly Master governs all the world as Sovereign of the universe. We are astonished at Him by reason of His perfection, we honor Him and fall down before Him because of His unlimited power. From blind physical necessity, which is always and everywhere the same, no variety adhering to time and place could evolve, and all variety of created objects which represent order and life in the universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, Whom I call the Lord God.”

    “In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God’s existence.”

    “God created everything by number, weight and measure.”

    …I mean they are his own words.

  18. Regarding the Gemini page. 1. “They” have not observed this for 200 million years b/c they were not around. 2. On the page they simply just state that this not star nor dwarf is 500 million years old but don’t state why they think so. 3. their old earth presuppositions give them no other option than to proclaim it “500 million years old”.
    Which is precisely my point when it comes to presuppositions. The facts are the same, the presuppositions are not.

  19. “With my Holy Book it tells me of the beginning; In the beginning God (Genesis 1:1)… you still have nothing but guesses of the beginning. Somewhere along the line something must have been created. You’d have to at least admit that.”

    Your book. Ah, ok. You know what happened because it is in a book. So it must be true.

    You can’t get your thick head round the fact that because something is written in an old book it must be true. What about all the other incorrect parts of this amazing book? Do they not make you perhaps doubt its veracity?

    You are mindless.

    As for the comment about observing it for 200 million years! There is light reaching the earth right now that is from stars that existed millions of years ago. But no, keep thinking that somehow everything is 6000 years old.

    And Nasa is clearly made up of anti-religious dumbasses, right?

    http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/hubble_UDF.html

    “”Hubble takes us to within a stone’s throw of the big bang itself,” says Massimo Stiavelli of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, Md., and the Hubble Ultra Deep Field project lead. The combination of ACS and NICMOS images will be used to search for galaxies that existed between 400 and 800 million years (ranging from redshift 7 to 12) after the big bang. A key question for astronomers is whether the universe appears to be the same at this very early time as it did when the cosmos was between 1 and 2 billion years old.”

    You need to boycott your government that is spending money on research that directly refutes your amazing book.

  20. “God created everything by number, weight and measure.”

    Well done. At no point have I stated that God does not exist.

    Difficult as it may be for a Christian, this does not mean that I have to believe in YOUR version of the creation, or that Jesus was the son of God, or that the Bible contains anything by way of divine truth, etc.

    Why is this so difficult for your brain to process?

  21. I am a friend of “Jim Mac”, but I would like to present a few objections to his views as well as the views of the authors.

    First, evolution is not necessarily contradictory to the Christian message or revelation. This is true in two senses: Primarily, the central truth of the gospel does not rely on “creationism”. Secondarily, evolution is perfectly acceptable within a Christian view as the instrumental cause of the development of life within the universe. The idea of a literal view of Genesis One was not accepted by the majority of Jewish scholars, Origen, Tertullian, or Augustine, and probably others.

    Second, there is obviously a necessity within the Christian metanarrative for God and his direct action in the creation of the universe. The Christian rejects atheism of any kind (obviously), and therefore he/she believes that evolution was guided or started by God (or, in current phraseology, an Intelligent Designer). The idea that the concept ‘God’ is unfalsifiable is a Dawkinsian fallacy. Proving God’s existence is necessarily impossible, but this does not mean the the idea of God is inane. Indeed, many commonly held beliefs are necessarily impossible to prove- the existence of other minds/persons is the most obvious example, but there are others as well. I could give my reasons here for my belief in God and the coherence of the Christian interpretation of reality, but that would exceed the intentions of my reply.

    Third, the term ‘faith’ has been misrepresented by both sides. Jim Mac is referring to, if I understand him correctly, the necessity of postulating unprovable axioms which necessitate non-rational acceptance (e.g., the validity of Logic). I believe the other side is referring to ‘blind faith’, an absolutely absurd concept that has no acceptance within the vast majority of the rational Christian world. Even Soren Kierkegaard, the man both famous and infamous for his ‘Leap of Faith’ concept, did not believe in unjustifiable faith. Anyway, ‘faith’ in the Pauline sense is not really either of these things, but it is unnecessary to explicate upon the particulars here because the germane concept has not even been referred to.

    Fourth, it is my personal opinion that Christians should distance themselves (and distance themselves many miles away) from any statements made by Mr. Kent Hovind. I believe Jim Mac may have quoted from him at least once.

    Fifth, though this is not the forum for epistemology, I believe that the authors of this blog (though, admittedly, I am unfamiliar with the intricacies of their philosophy) have an untenable empiricist perspective that would lead to a Humean skepictism.

    I hope that this post is not incredibly off-topic.

  22. I would like to make one retraction. I believe I have illegitimately overgeneralized the views of those other than Jim Mac. I apologize for this.

  23. Jim Mac,

    There are actually hundreds of scriptures that indicate that the earth is in a fixed position within the firmament. But here are five obvious ones:

    1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
    Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …”
    Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable …”
    Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
    Isaiah 45:18: “…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…”

    Have you considered joining a flat earth society? If you truly believe that the Bible should guide us scientifically, you really should consider it.

    You suggest that I wasn’t really born again. I would be offended if that weren’t so hilarious. You employ your brain solely to manipulate the reality that surrounds you to fit your conclusions. You do not examine the facts so as to ascertain the conclusion—you concluded first, and disregard or invalidate any facts that don’t conform to your conclusion, and simultaneously cling to pop cultural icons who corroborate your delusions. You are so resolute in this practice that you will invalidate my own personal experience. That’s so sad. It’s of little benefit for me to attempt discourse with someone who is so severely delusional that my own personal experience can be discounted as “not real.” Amazing.

    Please name three scientists who are not Christian but who believe in a literal creation. Also list where they work so I can look them up.

    I am aware of Ben Stein’s movement. Any bozo can throw together a list of few dozen whacko scientists from a sample of hundreds of thousands. Think about it Jim Mac. There are hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world, and the overwhelming majority (like 99.5%) of them are evolutionists. If there were two bits of validity to intelligent design, why aren’t there more? Do you know who fractous the scientific community is? Do you know how seldom the agree with such unanimity?

    Evolution has been proven. It CAN be proven because it has. Why do you need to put lies into Richard Dawkins mouth? Please let him speak for himself, although I doubt you would listen.

    If you think evolution can’t be proven then you also think it can’t be proven that Pearl Harbor was bombed on December 7, 1941.

    Here’s my new theory for you to digest: “Maybe Pearl Harbor was bombed on December 6th? Can you prove that it wasn’t? Huh? Huh? Can ya? So what if you have millions of pages of documented evidence—you’ve misinterpreted it! And some of it was outright fabricated. That Pearl Harbor was bombed on December 7th is just YOUR theory. You can’t prove it! I DEMAND that my theory of the 12/6 bombing be also taught in schools because I have THREE other historians who agree with me! TEACH THE CONTROVERSY! WHY ARE YOU CENSORING US! IT’S A CONSPIRACY!”

    That’s how ridiculous Ben Stein is. But you lap it up like warm cream because it fits perfectly into your conclusion.

  24. And Obama was born in Kenya..!

    I appreciated the long comment of M. Stearns.

    I certainly have sympathy for the skepticism of Hume, and feel he was right to simply conclude that there is little way to know that God exists, when we can’t actually experience objects in a direct manner, or find a rational basis for cause and effect. If the end result is humility, fine.

    The problem comes when people such as Jim Mac want to assert something that can’t be asserted, no matter how evident it may be for them, namely, the objective existence of God, and begin to refute sections of human knowledge simply because they conflict with their own paradigm. Likewise, legislating on the basis of people’s religious beliefs, etc, to me this is simply not acceptable.

    If Christians want to live a good life and follow the example of Christ, then let them, and permit the public sphere to be free of their interference. One vital space in the public sphere is the classroom, and children should not be forced to have unempirical religious propaganda given the same status as the fruits of millions of hours of scientific enquiry into the natural world. Evolution does not teach that God does not exist, and teachers should not try to draw such an inference from explaining the theory. However, the fact that evolution conflicts with the Biblical story of Creation, well, I am sorry, but that is just tough, and Jim’s example of the fixed Earth is valid, should science not teach that either?

  25. M. Stearns, welcome. Thanks for your reply. It’s a little off-topic, but I’ll meander that direction. 🙂

    The Biblical definition of faith (from Hebrews) is “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

    I believe that is how I’ve used the term faith. The Biblical definition is–in itself–a guidebook for fallacious reasoning. It begins with hope, then seeks out evidence to substantiate that hope. The Bible’s own definition of “faith” is opposed to the scientific method.

    The scientific method requires us to examine the evidence and build our perception of the world based on what is real–even when we don’t like it. The evolutionary world view is decidedly cruel and offers all the comfort of a tin blanket. Basically, evolution says that if you adapt to your environment, you might survive, but if you get eaten–oh well–the universe will continue on without you or your species. That’s a tough pill to swallow, so people instead look for the evidence of things they HOPE are true–and insist that the documented evidence that could be stacked higher than the Notre Dame is, in fact, wrong.

    I will have to respond further later. I actually have a job I must go do!

  26. M. Stearns I can appreciate much of what you said regarding evolution not in direct contradiction to a theistic view. However, what most scientists react to with the ID crowd is that they are trying to present a theistic ID view *as a scientific one*. That is simply not tenable, because to simply plug God into the gaps with no evidence is not a scientific approach.

    Also, I don’t think Dawkins (or the myriad of others who say it) claim that the concept of God is “Unfalsifiable” is a fallacy. How could it be? Falsifiability was a scientific term long before the creation/evolution myth erupted. An argument that has falsifiability is a STRONGER argument. You may already understand this, but let me explain for those who don’t:

    If I say that paper cannot burn, I am making a falsifiable argument. The way you can falsify my argument is to burn paper. In this case, the argument was strong, but incorrect. If I say that lead has more volume density than wood, I am again making a falsifiable argument. This COULD be falsified, if it were wrong, through simple experimentation. However, it is not wrong, so this is a very strong argument. When Einstein said that when an object reaches light speed it becomes infinite mass, he was making an argument that was NOT falsifiable. It may be strong in other ways, but since there is no experiment known to us that could falsify that argument, it is weaker among theories. Likewise, the argument that God guided the evolutionary process is unfalsifiable, and therefore a weaker argument. There is simply nothing fallacious about saying it is unfalsifiable.

    You are right, however, that this fact does not imply that the belief in God inane. Nor does it imply that the belief in light speed = infinite mass is inane. Unfalsifiability does not equal incorrectness.

    Amen on Kent Hovind (please add Ray Comfort to that list as well).

    Regarding Hume … I rather like the fellow. He criticized religion in a day when men were hanged for blasphemy.

    Anyway, while I do agree that if you take skepticism to the nth degree, one would arrive at a place where virtually nothing is knowable. But I believe that the universe we perceive is real. The laws that guide the universe are 100% reliable. Call that a leap of faith if you will, but it is a practical one.

  27. Regarding the flat earth: That is not the only interpretation of those verses.

    If I make the Earth and keep it safe and stable (put it in the exact right place in the universe, keep it moving at just the right speed, and keep just the right amount of matter surrounding it) then I can say that it is fixed and firm and immovable can’t I?

    Some of the problems of saying that the Bible is or is not scientific is interpretation. I believe that you have to have a certain perspective when reading the Bible as well. I believe that a evolutionist and a creationist will read and interpret differently.

  28. That’s kind of astounding Ted. You interpret the Bible to a pro-science viewpoint when the science is obvious to you. But with evolution, which is completely proven but which you don’t really understand, you eschew science.

    I’ll get you more examples using Harris’s nifty Reason project soon …

  29. I don’t eschew science or evolution. I think they are worthy endeavors. I don’t think that they are complete and I know I don’t want to base my life as if they were.

    I’m always happy to discuss other examples. You know there are verses in the Bible which are used in much the same way that you used them to show that the Bible is scientifically accurate even way before those scientific discoveries were found?

    That reason project sounds good. I will be excited to play with it and check it out.

  30. What scriptures are those, Ted?

  31. Time is not linear. God exists outside of time because he isn’t limited by gravity, mass and acceleration. Isiah 57:15 “For thus saith the high and lofy One that inhabiteth eternity…”

    The first law of thermodynamics; conservation of Matter and Energy. “And on the seventh day God ended His work…” (Genesis 2:2-3) “the works were finished from the foundation of the world…” (Hebrews 4:3-4) “All things that are therin… you preserve them all.” (Neh 9:6)

    Ecclesiastes 3:14-15–“I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever; nothing can be put to it, nor anything taken from it …. That which hath been is now, and that which is to be hath already been.”

    The second law of Thermodynamics; The bondage of decay. “They sahall perish… grow old as a garment…” (Ps 103:25-26)
    “Heaven and earth will pass away…” (Isa 51:6)

    Hydrology:

    The science of hydrology was founded in the seventeenth century by Mariotte, Perrault, and Halley, but the hydrologic cycle is clearly described in Scripture:

    Isaiah 55:10-11–“As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return there without watering the earth, and making it bear and sprout, and furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater; so shall My word be which goes forth from My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it” (NASB).

    Ecclesiastes 1:7–“All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full.” That’s because of the hydrologic cycle.

    Job 36:27-28–“He [God] draws up the drops of water, they distill rain from the mist, which the clouds pour down, they drip upon man abundantly” (NASB).

    Psalm 135:7–“He causeth the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings for the rain.” This verse speaks of evaporation and precipitation.

    Job 26:8–“He bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds; and the cloud is not torn under them.” This verse speaks of the formation of clouds by condensation.

    Job 28:10–“He cutteth out rivers among the rocks.” This verse describes run-off.

    Psalm 19:6–Referring to the sun the psalmist says, “His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it; and there is nothing hidden from the heat thereof.” This verse took on new meaning when it was discovered that the sun, along with the other stars in our galaxy, revolve around the center of the galaxy. Astronomy books currently teach that the sun completes one such circuit every 250 million years (e.g., Robert Jastrow and Malcom H. Thompson, Astronomy: Fundamentals and Frontiers [New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1977], p. 6)

    In contrast to the widely held ancient belief that the earth was flat, the Bible clearly teaches that it is round. Isaiah 40:22 says, “It is He who sitteth upon the circle of the earth.” Job 38:14 says, “It [the earth] is turned like clay to the seal.” That is a reference to the small cylinders used in ancient times to put one’s seal on a clay document. Those cylinders had sticks through the center, like a rolling pin, and while the clay was still soft, they would be rolled across it, leaving the impression of the seal. The Bible tells us the earth rotates on its axis like a cylinder making a seal.

    Isostasy is a field of study within geology that deals with the balance maintained within the earth’s crust. The differing weights of the various types of rock maintain a delicate balance; otherwise the earth would wobble in its rotation like a lopsided basketball. Isaiah 40:12 says, “[God] hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and measured out heaven with the span, and measured the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance.” Psalm 104:5, 8 tells us that God “established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter …. The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place which [He] didst establish for them” (NASB). The Bible teaches that the earth is balanced.

    In the seventeenth century William Harvey discovered the circulatory system, demonstrating that the blood sustains life. In ancient and medieval times it was common practice to bleed sick people. Now that we understand the importance of blood in sustaining life, doctors sometimes give blood transfusions to sick persons. The importance of the blood in sustaining life is recognized in the statement of Leviticus 17:11 that “the life of the flesh is in the blood.”

    Before the time of Galileo, it was not known that the air had weight. Evangelista Torricelli, a student of Galileo, invented the first barometer, proving the air has pressure. However, Scripture implied that thousands of years before. Job 28:25 says, “He imparted weight to the wind” (NASB)

    Wind Circulation

    In the seventeenth century George Hadley discovered that the winds circulate around the earth. Thousands of years earlier the book of Ecclesiastes referred to this phenomenon: “The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to its circuits.”

    Psychosomatic Illness:

    God knows that our emotions are very important to good health. Proverbs 16:24 says, “Pleasant words are like an honeycomb, sweet to the soul, and health to the bones.” Emotional stress caused by criticism and angry words can adversely affect our health. Proverbs 17:22 says, “A merry heart doeth good like a medicine, but a broken spirit drieth the bones.” A happy person tends to be healthy; an unhappy person tends to be unhealthy.

    There are a lot of others, but you get the point.

    You can interpret these things after you know the facts. It can be a little bit of “seeing what you want to see in it” and it depends on your perspective, but it is interesting nonetheless and it is just like the verses that you used to describe the flat Earth.

  32. http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg1348.htm

  33. Here is another one… http://www.icr.org/article/346/

    And here is a quick reference one…
    http://www.creationevidence.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=43

  34. It is strange that evolution has never ever, ever, ever been proven to be true , but GOD’S word is proven true each and everyday!!!!!!

  35. *Kookoo*
    *Kookoo*
    *Kookoo*

  36. We didn’t come from apes.

  37. You are correct Niko. Apes are an offshoot of Australopithacine line, but not our direct ancestor. So they are more like cousins.

  38. I know I’m rather late with this post but I came about it by accident and I was interested in the debate. May i point out one very important flaw in a very early post by Kingfelix. The reason why Newton had such strong beliefs in God was that the Theory of Evolution did not exist, it was some 300 years later that Darwin published the findings of his reasearch. Comparing the science behind evolution to how Newton as a scientist viewed the world is like trying to compare a sock and an orange, you just can’t do it. I ask just one thing from both sides of this arguement, why can the two not co-exist? Why can there not be evolution and a God? Why is it always one or the other? I see no reason why the two could not possibly co-exist and the idea that there is perhaps some power which stirs the saucepan of life is actually quite intreguing! Not in the “adam and eve ‘pop’ we exist way” but in the way that, like all of us, even a supreme being needs a few goes at it!!
    Personally, I cannot have faith in something whos existence is only documented in one ancient book! And while you say that there is evidence all around for the existence of God, I do not agree that this infact the case. There are many unexplained phenomina in the universe and the lack of scientific explanation seems to make some religious people think that this is evidence for a God, its not – lack of evidence for one thing is not proof of evidence for another!
    All I say is that people are entitled to believe whatever they want, but its not a “right or wrong” situation. Both lines of the arguement are based on a theory, however you like to look at it, and it is the individual who must decide which of these theories are more understandable to them, accepting that the other has the right to their own decision. I firmly belive in evolution and natural selection, to me it makes the most sense and has the most documented evidence. But as I said, I think it would be far more fascinating if it were a mix of the two!!
    Interesting topic, sorry I found it so late on!!

  39. I don’t know if it’s just me or if perhaps everyone else experiencing problems with your website.
    It appears as if some of the written text within your posts are running off the screen.
    Can someone else please comment and let me know if
    this is happening to them as well? This could be a problem with
    my browser because I’ve had this happen before. Kudos

  40. I just tested it on Internet Explorer 8 and Firefox 22.0 and Chrome. No problems. Looks like it might be just you my friend!

  41. Magnificent beat ! I would like to apprentice while you amend your web
    site, how could i subscribe for a blog website? The account aided me a acceptable deal.

    I had been tiny bit acquainted of this your broadcast offered bright clear idea


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

Categories

%d bloggers like this: