Baker

I did read that link when you first gave it. I do know why you do not tell me where you get your information from. It's that site. That site is notorious for hating the creationists. The guy who runs the site hates Ham. My son has conversed with this guy. I also noticed that's where you got your info from on Hovind. They called him a sham and so did you. So you take what they dish out and believe it. Have you watched any of Hovind's videos? Probably not.

I've given you many explanations or quotes from many sources including both from the evolutionary side and the creationist's side and you've chosen to ignore them by no comment. But I'm not cranking on you because of it. We all get our information from those who have gone on before us and have done the research. You on the other hand seem to like to surf the net in search of loony sites and pass them on to me as proof of what you believe. Baker, you've given me some looney sites you have to admit...starting with the JM rant because supposedly he had an silly argument on a theological issue regarding Christ. Anybody can post anything.....doesn't mean they are right. It can also mean they have an ax to grind. Those arre the sites you seem most attracted to.

This is what I pulled out from your site.
The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences.

and I can see that. They are all out attacking all the creationists. I see nasty articles directed at Ham, Hovind and Johnson. I do not get that on answersingenesis. I do not see that from the creationists articles. They stick to the arguments. Why are Ham, Hovind and Johnson such a threat if the evolutionists have all the answers? What are they afraid of?

check this out from your link.........

Link

all they are doing is bashing the creationists and you want me to read this stuff and believe it? Com' on.

this is why I didn't respond to you on your most recent link.....but you pushed the issue and now you know what I'm thinking here.

No one that isn't irrationally biased or patently dishonest would believe that dinosaurs and people lived in the same time period given the obvious difference in how and where we find their remains; a problem you refuse to address

I have addressed this more than once. You may want to go back and re read what I've said then regarding this. But I wouldn't mind adding more to this subject.

If you think that guesses and supposition are equal to science, then what's the point? I might as well be arguing with someone that the Earth is on the back of a turtle, to borrow from your irresponsible evangelist. Scientists work to prove their points with evidence, and you and Ham will just declare yourselves correct. Why bother? Deal with cacto and kingbee, I'm done.

you know better than that as I've said over and over I respect Science and what they've done. It's pseudo Science and theories I have trouble with. The creationist Scientist is using the same evidence but are coming to different conclusions using their worldview which shapes our thoughts and words.

I've never heard this before. Where do you get your source for this statement? I'd be interested in checking this out.

High school biology.

"They are all out attacking all the creationists."

You expect people who stand and proclaim falsehood and attack science not to get attacked in return? I'll take the very reasonable citations and references on Talk Origins over the supposition and hijacked study on answersingenesis any day. Hovind and Ham have made a career out of misrepresenting science to people who are too lazy to take the time to double check them. Many of the people published on the Talk Origins site have spent their life in study, not just smarting off and misrepresenting other people's work with correspondence course degrees.

"all they are doing is bashing the creationists and you want me to read this stuff and believe it? Com' on."

After reading that I am really sitting here wondering about your sanity. Have you read the tone of Ham's site? Are you really sitting there trying to foist the idea that Hovind and Ham aren't bashing scientists that promote evolution? You expect me to look at Hovind's deranged and infantile stuff objectively when you won't respect articles written by lifetime, dedicated scientists who bother to back up their speculation with evidence?

You just saunter over and look at the long list of the reviews EARNED by the Talk Origins site. The Smithsonian Institution, Scientific American, etc.Feel free to weigh the reputations of the organizations who have complimented that site, and then compare to who offers praise to your professional creationists.

You will just downplay them because they are all in on the big evolutionist conspiracy. That's why arguing with you is futile. Any data that proves you wrong isn't reliable; you don't even need to read it. The fact is I don't take ANYONE at their word, and I don't post anything that I don't do a google search first to see dissenting opinion. Not being blind, I don't need the blind to lead me.

"I have addressed this more than once"

No, you haven't, and even Ham admits there's no scientific explanation why dinosaurs and humans are preserved in completely different ways and why our finds look the way they do if the earth is only 6,000 years old. You may have 'addressed' it, but you certainly haven't offered a valid reason why the creationist model doesn't play out in terms of what we find in nature.

"you know better than that as I've said over and over I respect Science and what they've done. It's pseudo Science and theories I have trouble with. The creationist Scientist is using the same evidence but are coming to different conclusions using their worldview which shapes our thoughts and words. "

No, you only respect science that comes to the same conclusions as you. If they reject science and replace it with faith in a book you respect them, and if they don't you deem them pseudoscience. The fact that you pretend they use the same data when 90% of everything you post has no reference to data whatsoever is telling. Even when they do, they don't use their own data, they twist other people's findings to mean things that the scientists in question never intended.

High school biology.

hahaha I should have paid more attention to HS Science.

You expect people who stand and proclaim falsehood and attack science not to get attacked in return?

There's enough bashing to go around on both sides. I'm just not about that I guess. But I do see (maybe it's my bias) that Ham, and Johnson especially seem very professional. I don't see this type of thing like what I saw on Talk Origins. They may mention evolutionists believe this or that but I don't see a lot of going after specific individuals. Hovind is just sarcastic all over. But again I haven't seen him single anyone out by name either. Maybe he has, I've just not seen it.

You just saunter over and look at the long list of the reviews EARNED by the Talk Origins site. The Smithsonian Institution, Scientific American, etc.Feel free to weigh the reputations of the organizations who have complimented that site, and then compare to who offers praise to your professional creationists.

ok, I did this. This is what I noticed. First off this is what they said right off:

"[Scott] Chase warns of "phony" science FAQs from "wackos peddling their personal opinion." One place to find the real thing is this site that mirrors an MIT archive of FAQs. They run the gamut from the ozone layer to dodo extinctions and www.talkorigins.org, which debunks creationist arguments."The renowned periodical Scientific American had this to say about the Archive in its July 2002 issue: "Talk.Origins archive (www.talkorigins.org). This wonderfully thorough online resource compiles useful essays and commentaries that have appeared in Usenet discussions about creationism and evolution. It offers detailed discussions (some of which may be too sophisticated for casual readers) and bibliographies relating to virtually any objection to evolution that creationists might raise."

Again the whole thing is to attack creationists. Why? Why not just deal with the evidence? I'm wondering if they don't sell pictures of Ham, Hovind and Johnson for target practice.

Also, this seems kind of unreal if all that is true, actually absurd...Universities that use a website as literature for their science classes? People keep to their own, you know that. Evolutionists rule in science, and you know that as well. Of course they will approve and recommend each other. There are no Christian organizations so it's impossible for a Christian Science Organization to award or recommend AiG or ICR.

Ham has acknowledged that it's anti-Christians and Organizations that win the awards in Science so this is not news to the Creationists. . Check this out titled "The Not So Noble Decision":

Anticreationists often try to pretend that there is no prejudice against biblical creation in ‘the world of science’. But creationists have long known that things are not like that in the real world. We even have to publish our own peer-reviewed journals; any paper which does not bow to materialistic axioms on origins has a snowball’s chance in a blast furnace of getting published in a secular journal. In fact, some editors have made it very clear that they will go to great lengths to keep their respective journals free of such ‘corrupting influences’. Then there was the well-publicized case of Forrest Mims, the highly-skilled science writer. His employment by Scientific American was openly denied on the grounds of his creationist views—even though the subjects he was paid to write on were not remotely related to origins.

Read about what happened and notice what the rabid anti-Christian Ruse had to say (giving him credit for playing fair).

Having testified against creationism in major US trials, Ruse still opposes biblical creation with every fibre of his being. In fact, he says he feels ‘a certain sympathy’ for those who might say that creationists should be excluded from scientific recognition lest it give their ‘wrong … [even] dangerous’ views credibility. But his sense of fair play makes him say, ‘I cringe at the thought that Raymond Damadian was refused his just honor because of his religious beliefs.’ By those standards, he points out, the Nobel committee (whose deliberations remain sealed for 50 years) would also have had to reject Isaac Newton.

Link

Cartoonist who takes shots at creationists wins Pulitzer Prize...........
Link

The fact is I don't take ANYONE at their word, and I don't post anything that I don't do a google search first to see dissenting opinion. Not being blind, I don't need the blind to lead me.

good, another thing we agree on. Maybe we should dwell on what we agree on? We do have a few things here. I'm the same way.....guess we're just coming to different conclusions.

You may have 'addressed' it, but you certainly haven't offered a valid reason why the creationist model doesn't play out in terms of what we find in nature

no, you're right here. I agree I haven't gone deep into this issue. Would you like to give me your thoughts first on this?

If they reject science and replace it with faith in a book you respect them,

I don't think Ham, Hovind, Johnson or myself for that matter reject science at all. Evidence is evidence. I am nowhere near a Scientist. My opinion really means not a twit in the whole scope of things. I never go by what I think. It doesn't take me that far.

My son who graduated with a degree in Molecular Cell was thinking of getting his Masters thru ICR but was advised against it by another (Christian) Scientist. He said to be credible my son had to go after his post grad degree in a secular organization. It would be better for his career to do so. He then got a full scholarship to Tulane University one applicant out of thousands. If they had found out he was a Christian, he wasn't sure he would have been chosen. It shouldn't be like that.

So don't tell me there is not a conspiracy or prejudice or whatever you want to call it out there.......because there is.

"So don't tell me there is not a conspiracy or prejudice or whatever you want to call it out there.......because there is. "

It isn't a conspiracy, it is protecting science from people like Ham and Hovind. Be sensible and look at what Ham does on his website. That isn't science, it's speculation. They are not devoted to science, and I believe that anyone who has an open mind can see it. You just think they are science-based because they spout the jargon and steal facts from other people's work.

Science for them is a resource, a place they go to dig for facts to prove the unprovable. Who cares what your son believes? Of course, though, when people brashly announce their unscientific biases before walking in the door they are looked down upon. Science isn't about coming to a conclusion and then grasping whatever evidence you can find to back it up.

That's what Ham does. They aren't scientists, they are people who sit around and watch other people's work, and snatch at bits and pieces of it to fill in the gaps for what they've already decided. That isn't science, not in the least. Worse, they rarely characterize the facts they glean accurately. It's "Red Blood Cells from a Dinosaur" that were found instead of "soft structures that have the appearance and characteristics of heme."

Don't think for a SECOND that creationists are any different. What are the odds that an evolutionist would be allowed in Ham or Hovind's dog and pony show? They are not only derisive and antagonistic to anyone who doesn't believe in the Bible, they have the added benefit of being able to tell people what God thinks about this and that. ANyone who finds against them is working against God and is in on the 'conspiracy'.

In reality they aren't any different than alien conspiracy people who do the same thing. Both have already decided what the truth is, and now they are working backwards, piecing together a quilt of unrelated and twisted facts. That is most certainly not science. It is paranoia.

As for Talk Origins, evidently you can't read it without bias. Could you find guidance on whether or not you should marry "non-Christians" on Talk Origins?

"Real biblical ‘interracial’ marriage If one wants to use the term ‘interracial,’ then the real ‘interracial’ marriage that God says we should not enter into is when a child of the Last Adam (one who is a new creation in Christ—a Christian) marries one who is an unconverted child of the First Adam (one who is dead in trespasses and sin—a non-Christian). These are the two ‘races’ of humans that should not intermarry. Examples of such ‘mixed marriages’ and their negative consequences can be seen in Nehemiah 9 and 10, and Numbers 25."

Wow, wanna talk about brash. You claim it is harder to get into school, when they are outright telling people not even to get into romantic relationships with "non-Christians". Do you think Talk Origins has an anti-Christian breeding agenda?

Also, do you think a scientist, in a scientific publication, should espouse the idea that UFOs are the work of the Devil?

"It is ludicrous to even consider that advanced extraterrestrials are traveling millions of light years across the universe (if they could find us in the first place) just to recondition our spiritual beliefs. Christians can see the obvious deception by Satan and his cohorts through the nature of these messages. Uncomfortable as we may be by the thought of increasing contact by the spiritual enemies of God, it is happening. The reason is that popular beliefs about evolution, extraterrestrial life and the possibility of interstellar space travel have made even the average person in the street susceptible to such deceptions and possibly contacts."

I'm currently writing an article on AiG, so I won't waste a lot of time doubling up here. There's PLENTY, though, so if you are going to call them a scientific organization you had better be ready to defend against a mountain of unscientific, and even anti-scientific expression on their part.

Aliens are from the devil?

HAHAHAHA. Never heard that one before!

I thought they were just humans "reincarnated" on another planet.

Buwhahahahahahhahaha.

I remember sitting in Bible class my freshman year of high school, watching a Ham tape about evolution, and laughingly telling my neighbor "Dude, if this guy isn't a missing link, I dunno what is!"

I still say he looks like a monkey.

Wow, never thought this little piece would attract such a crowd- especially such a large amount of people that really have no idea what they're talking about! I wrote this article in mear defense of creationism because the facts of life show that people will believe what they are told. People are stupid and they think just because they're 7th grade biology teacher said that evolution is science that they must have evolved from a monkey. Ridiculous. Evolution is not science. It is simply an expression of faith for those of you who refuse to allow the thought that there might possibly, just possibly, be a God out there that is more powerful then yourself. We're born with that selfish nature and the thought of having to submit ourselves to God is not going to happen. That's where evolution comes in. It's an escape, because we just eliminated God. Sure, we're all accidents that just happened upon this earth by chance, but hey- no God! Now lets look at some facts: nothing in the bible has ever been disproved. Ever. Why should creation be any different. And I'm not so sure about you, but I'd rather have the hope of an eternity in heaven with streets paved in gold then the hope to become a good fertilizer for the ground after my death. How 'bout you?!

"People are stupid and they think just because they're 7th grade biology teacher said that evolution is science that they must have evolved from a monkey"

As stupid as people who devote themselves to the inerrancy of a book that never even claimed to be inerrant? To a creation story written by people that they openly admit weren't there to witness it, a la Ham's "Were you there"? Careful who you start calling stupid, bud. Creationism fails ITS OWN TESTS when they are turned back on it.

It was obvious to people a few hundred years ago that the sun orbited the earth because of how they interpreted scripture, and you may find yourself with the same self-imposed smear someday. There's nothing more blasphemous than putting your words in God's mouth. You aren't preaching creationism; you're preaching the inerrancy of your own personal beliefs. How's that for hubris?

"We're born with that selfish nature and the thought of having to submit ourselves to God is not going to happen. That's where evolution comes in. It's an escape, because we just eliminated God."

And that is where you are brainwashed, frankly. Evolution does not eliminate God. It simply opposes the irrational idea of biblical inerrancy. You can have God and have evolution. You can have the Bible and have evolution. What you can't have is a literally perfect pile of paper and ink and evolution.

You can bang away at the 'science as religion' thing, just as your backwards counterparts posed medicine and chemistry as witchcraft not so long ago. Live in the armpit of history if you want to. You'll just find yourself sharing the derision that many, many people who also used God as their hand puppet enjoyed, and all just to try and preserve their spiritually superior self-image.

Who cares what your son believes? Of course, though, when people brashly announce their unscientific biases before walking in the door they are looked down upon. Science isn't about coming to a conclusion and then grasping whatever evidence you can find to back it up.

Well evidently they do care, because you cannot be considered a (true) Scientist and a Christian at the same time. Any trace of Christianity will kill a Scientist's career. For your consideration among hundreds of such quotes I could give:

Evolution incompatible with Christianity‘People seem to think that Christianity and evolution do or can go together. But I suggest this is only possible for the intellectually schizophrenic. Biological theory does not require or allow any sort of divine guidance for the evolutionary process …’.David Oldroyd, The (Australian) Weekend Review, 20–21 March 1993, p. 5. (David Oldroyd is associate professor in the School of Science and Technology Studies at the University of New South Wales, Australia.)

Leading anti-creationist philosopher Michael Ruse admits that evolution is a religion‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."
‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’

Famous evolutionist George Gaylord Simson said this:
"Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind,"

Science and bias
"At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don't usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position."
Boyce Rensberger, How the World Works, William Morrow, NY, 1986, pp. 17–18. Rensberger is an ardently anti-creationist science writer.

Basically the evolutionists themselves reveal quite interestingly their bais against creationism and anything that even remotely sounds like it could be God centered. The blanch at the very mention of God. So someone like my son has to be very mum about his Christianity because he is a Scientist that cares very much about research and is currently working to find cures for epilepsy and diabetes.

Wow, wanna talk about brash. You claim it is harder to get into school, when they are outright telling people not even to get into romantic relationships with "non-Christians". Do you think Talk Origins has an anti-Christian breeding agenda?

no I say....wow you're more anti-christian than you let on. They are not telling people... they are showing where scripture quite clearly speaks about being equally yoked. You don't put a donkey and an ox together now do you? They would not be equally yoked with one working against the other. It's the same way with marriage or any sort of business partnership. You don't want to be unequally yoked because it doesn't work well. One wants to go one way the other in a different direction and nothing gets accomplished like it should. He must have had reason to put this in responding to an issue or question about racial marriages. He responded as Christ would have. He brought them to the scriptures. Christ was always trying to get eyes off the physical and onto the spiritual whether it be the woman at the well who had married 5 husbands or the intellectuals like the Pharisees. The spiritual is much more important and that's what this article is getting at.

God did not say this because he's being domineering and mean. No he says such things because he knows what works and what's best for us. I see great sadness in churches today. I see moms without their husbands coming every week. desparately wanting their husbands to be with them. I see husbands with wives that have no interest in God and it just tears the man to pieces and he comes alone. I see marriages break up all the time because of such things. Their home is not what it could be. It's miserable. And the kids pay the price. I know because I too grew up in such a home.

Now, I'd agree with you if that's how AiG responded to all topics but that isn't the case. Ham would never talk to an atheist about scripture. Why would he? It would be a waste of time. He would use the scientific facts alone. But remember his site here is directed mostly to Christians so he's going to give them scriptual basis for his answers. But you even said earlier (I'm too lazy to go back) that Ham kept to Science pretty well or something to that effect. Not all of his articles or correspondence is quite so biblical.

I'm not sure where you pulled up the second quote so I won't respond.

And that is where you are brainwashed, frankly. Evolution does not eliminate God. It simply opposes the irrational idea of biblical inerrancy. You can have God and have evolution. You can have the Bible and have evolution

First off he was educated 13 years in a public school system. He would be one reason the evolutionist scratches his head and asks why..."he didn't get it?

I think quite clearly we see that evolution as Darwin and his followers put it is consistent with godless theology or maybe Deism at best. When Darwinists say that their theory does not deny "the existence of God" and claim that they are saying nothing about "religion" they usually mean they are willing to allow deism as a possibility for people who are unwilling to give up God altogether. Many evolutionary naturalists see no harm in making this concession because a God who confines his activity to the beginning of time is unimportant to human lives.

Are you a deist Baker?

Now if you mean by evolution as a God guided process maybe I might think you're on the right track. But that is not what is usually meant by the term evolution. It's absolutely insistent that evolution is an unguided and mindless process and that we are not planned but happened by chance.

Do you know that even atheists see the inconsistency of Christians believing in evolution? From The American AtheistMeaning of Evolution by G. Richard Bozarth

Christianity is-must be totally committed to the special creation described in Genesis, and Christianity must fight with all it's full fight fair or foul against the theory of evolution......it becomes clear now that the whole justification of Jesus life and death is predicated on the existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he and Eve ate. Without the original sin who needs to be redeemed? Without Adam's fall into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what purpose is there to Christianity? None."

Atheist Jacques Monod (known for molecular biology and philosophy) said in an interview:

"Selection is the blindest and most cruel way of evolving new species and more and more complex and refined organizims the more curel because it is a process of elimination of destruction. The struggle for life and the elimination of the weakest is a horrible process against which our whole modern ethic revolts. An ideal society is a non selective society, it is one where the weak are protected which is exactly the reverse of the so called natural law. I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution. " (emphasis added)

As a Christian you must accept the fact that evolution is still going on in every area including humans. But God said when he was finished that all was good and he rested from this creative work. This would contradict what evolutionists are saying. Can you say that God once used evolution but now does not? This is a real dilemma for the theistic evolutionist.

Now I have to ask. Do you believe (as a Christian) that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth? If you say yes, you have just taken Gen 1:1 literally. You would be inconsistent in saying Gen 1:1 was literal but the rest is symbolic. How do you decide what is truth concerning the scriptures? Where do you begin? Where do you end?

I think you're trying to compromise and it really doesn't work. There really is no difference between atheistic and theistic evolution only that God is added to one so logically theistic evolution is only one step away from atheistic evolution. What do you do when the naturalistic philosophy goes one way and the evidence goes another? Which will you choose?

It is simply an expression of faith for those of you who refuse to allow the thought that there might possibly, just possibly, be a God out there that is more powerful then yourse

what i'm seeing here seems to be just the opposite. it's a complete denial of faith that god is powerful enuff to do anything you're either incapable of imagining or because you've annointed yourself god's puppeteer--in his best interests, of course.

Do you believe (as a Christian) that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth? If you say yes, you have just taken Gen 1:1 literally

do you believe mass density of the planet keeps us from suddenly floating off into space? if you say yes, you've just evidenced the limitations of your commitment to biblical literalism.

if you mean by evolution as a God guided process maybe I might think you're on the right track. But that is not what is usually meant by the term evolution. It's absolutely insistent that evolution is an unguided and mindless process and that we are not planned but happened by chance.

says whom? do you have any factual basis for making such an outrageous supposition?

of the 261 previous responses, you've been the only one who's been absolutely insistent on anything. problem being the anything you absolutely insist upon is, at bottom line, you know god's mind better with whom you disagree.

if i should ever again find a way to believe there is (or was) a god who brought everything into being, i'd hope it would be the kinda god who manifested his majesty by initiating a zillion years long process with some yet unknown sub-sub-atomic particle.

First off he was educated 13 years in a public school system

it shows.

especially such a large amount of people that really have no idea what they're talking about! I wrote this article in mear defense of creationism because the facts of life show that people will believe what they are told. People are stupid and they think just because they're 7th grade biology teacher said that evolution is science that they must have evolved from a monkey

normally i'd let spelling, usage and grammar errors slide and let the writer wallow in his or her own ignorance. until or unless he or she starts telling me i'm stupid.

"Basically the evolutionists themselves reveal quite interestingly their bais against creationism and anything that even remotely sounds like it could be God centered."

So, the most vocal nutjobs on your side aren't demonstrative of creationism, but their counterparts on the evolution side condemn them all? If you want to start swapping quotes, I've seen DOOZIES while reading for this discussion.

"They are not telling people... they are showing where scripture quite clearly speaks about...

But wait, Ham's site is more scientifically unbiased than Talk Origins, according to you. Given that the Bible, not science has the final say there, I tend to differ.

"But you even said earlier (I'm too lazy to go back) that Ham kept to Science pretty well or something to that effect. Not all of his articles or correspondence is quite so biblical. "

No, I admitted that he is better than Hovind, who makes up new Christian mythology off the top of his head. That doesn't mean that Ham is a scientist any more than your average science fiction writer who uses fact to make his fiction believable.

"I'm not sure where you pulled up the second quote so I won't respond. "

Right off Ham's site, from the FAQ question on UFOs if I recall correctly.

"Are you a deist Baker?"

No. Deists reject anything outside reason and logic, and I don't. I simply reject the idolotrous practice of holding paper and ink up so high that it casts a shadow on God.

"Do you know that even atheists see the inconsistency of Christians believing in evolution? From The American AtheistMeaning of Evolution by G. Richard Bozarth"

Come on. I eat people like that for breakfast and you know it. Nice to see how far you'll go outside your camp to stab a traitor, though.

"Can you say that God once used evolution but now does not? This is a real dilemma for the theistic evolutionist. "

No, and even Ham's model relies upon microevolution, given he believes that creatures exist now didn't exist at the time of Noah. Do you believe that there was a St. Bernard and a Chihuahua on the ark? God's work in nature is assuredly not done.

"Do you believe (as a Christian) that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth? If you say yes, you have just taken Gen 1:1 literally. You would be inconsistent in saying Gen 1:1 was literal but the rest is symbolic."

Woah now, how do YOU decide? You've refused to answer that question over and over. The same chapter says:

"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."

Were "the waters" given the power to 'bring forth' creatures and fowl? Sounds what you'd call a "Deist" description to me. I can show you plenty of poetic license right alongside scripture that you take literally.

"There really is no difference between atheistic and theistic evolution only that God is added to one so logically theistic evolution is only one step away from atheistic evolution. What do you do when the naturalistic philosophy goes one way and the evidence goes another?"

First, My beliefs resemble atheistic evolution as much as you resemble medieval witch burners. Second, you may pick from a limited list of available philosophies, but thankfully I've discovered that God gave me a fit mind and the ability to listen for His guidance.

Your beliefs about inerrancy position you between the people you differ with and God. You decide what is literal and demand there can be no other interpretation without questioning God Himself. Conveniently, when something is found to be literally false, it suddenly becomes figurative, though still inerrant, a la Galileo.

and you don't have your own bias LW?

I can always count on you for making my day.

You are never, EVER, going to open this woman's mind,

I can say the same here LW.....and I don't even try.

HER version

it's not MY version at all. I'm just a messenger. I didn't make this stuff up. I can't help it if you lack understanding because I keep saying over and over.....my opinion doesn't matter.....but it seems as tho....yours does.

all us poor

no, not you LW. I'm not bothering you......

Come on. I eat people like that for breakfast and you know it. Nice to see how far you'll go outside your camp to stab a traitor, though.

so what you're saying is......only give you info from my side of the camp? Isn't that being closed minded Baker? I've used info from both sides equally. From my POV you're saying...."ya of course they're going to say that, they're creationists" so I do go to the other side to see what they are saying and now you're saying "nice to see how far you'll go outside your camp to stab a traitor?" So is this the heads I win, tails you lose philosophy?

Woah now, how do YOU decide? You've refused to answer that question over and over.

WHAT QUESTION? I'm noticing this is one of your tactics....accusing me of not answering when all along you don't answer to what I've written. You just answered with a question here. You never answered as to how you can take 1:1 literally and then take the rest symbolically. At least I'm consistent....you have to give me that.

No, and even Ham's model relies upon microevolution, given he believes that creatures exist now didn't exist at the time of Noah. Do you believe that there was a St. Bernard and a Chihuahua on the ark? God's work in nature is assuredly not done.

No Baker, his creative powers were finished. You know I've been saying all along, micro evolution can still be in play. God said he was finished....creating. All was finished it says. So I believe that to be true. God put inside the creatures the ability to make variations of the same speicies......"after their own kind." were the exact words used. To date, this has not been disproven.

First, My beliefs resemble atheistic evolution as much as you resemble medieval witch burners.

I wasn't sure how to take that at first.....but like I said you're only one step away from it.

Conveniently, when something is found to be literally false, it suddenly becomes figurative, though still inerrant, a la Galileo.

ok we know you like Galileo and I've repeatedly dealt with this subject. Do you want me to start bringing up scientific boo boo's as well? The science I grew up on is not the same science taught today. Much has changed. On Galileo

Ironically, the traditional beliefs that Galileo opposed ultimately belonged to Aristotle, not to biblical exegesis. Pagan philosophy had become interwoven with traditional Catholic teachings during the time of Augustine. Therefore, the Church's dogmatic retention of tradition was the major seat of controversy, not the Bible. It may also be noted that Pope Urban VIII was himself sympathetic to Galileo but was not willing to stand against the tide of controversy. In reality, the majority of persecution seemed to come from intellectual scientists whose monopoly of educational authority had been threatened. During Galileo's time, education was primarily dominated by Jesuit and Dominican priests.

The lesson to be learned from Galileo, it appears, is not that the Church held too tightly to biblical truths; but rather that it did not hold tightly enough. It allowed Greek philosophy to influence its theology and held to tradition rather than to the teachings of the Bible. We must hold strongly to Biblical doctrine which has been achieved through sure methods of exegesis. We must never be satisfied with dogmas built upon philosophic traditions.

Link

Link

I'm going to see if I can get a real live Scientist to comment on this blog and since you, Baker like credentials, I'll go to the top and get one with a Ph.D after his name. The email is going out today. Oh and BTW I would be interested in your letter to AiG.

And for your info......even if we are polar opposites here.....I would have no problem inviting you to dinner (as long as I'm not the main course since you eat Atheists for breakfast) and discussing this in person. I have no animosity towards you at all. Just so you know.

LW

We all have different gifts given from God. Mine is to be open and direct. I am not mean about it but I do say it like it is. I would say you do as well. But we are definitely coming from different perspectivies. Look at John the Baptist, Peter, Paul, Noah....Jeremiah, Isaiah . They were not popular at all. They were beaten, kidnapped, exiled, sawn in two and beheaded and it was all because they dared open their mouths going against the "religions" of their day. I'm just thankful I don't live in your neighborhood.

They also spoke up and forcefully at times. I do the same. I believe God has given me the gift of prophecy...not the foretelling but the willingness to stand up and boldly proclaim what he's shown me to be true. It's not popular and I'm not necessarily real thankful for it. Maybe Tova has a gift that is more to your liking....maybe the gift of compassion or mercy or something you see in her that relates to you. That's terrific. I'm glad she can help you. But I wish you would stop blasting me because you don't like the way I speak to others. If they're not bothered why should you care.

~wonders if this same invitation would be extended to me, heathen that i am.~For some reason, i really doubt

well you assume wrong. You are not my favorite person around here either...but I would extend the same invitation to you as well. If you don't like a person, you need to get to know them better so you can find something to like.

"WHAT QUESTION? I'm noticing this is one of your tactics....accusing me of not answering when all along you don't answer to what I've written. You just answered with a question here. You never answered as to how you can take 1:1 literally and then take the rest symbolically. At least I'm consistent....you have to give me that. "

I've asked you more than once to explain to me the criteria that goes into deciding what is literal and what is figurative in terms of science and you have never, ever answered. You didn't even address the answer to that question a few inches above this reply.

I decide the same way anyone else would decide, by judging whether it makes any sense at all literally. Saying that God created the heavens and the earth makes sense. Describing a procedure wherein it took six days, when the facts of nature conflict with it doesn't. YOU admit that there is figurative and literal scripture, and YOU refuse to answer the question of how you decide.

Then you are imply again that it is all literal when you know it isn't. Where does it end for you? How do you find the cut-off point where it shifts to figurative mode. You're just imposing your beliefs on me, in that you need for a passage to be clearly one or the other. I don't believe the Bible is inerrant, thanks, so I don't need for them to be one or the other. They can just be plain wrong.

"No Baker, his creative powers were finished. You know I've been saying all along, micro evolution can still be in play. God said he was finished....creating."

And that odd difference in your mind is demonstrative of how you simply don't understand evolution, and refuse to because in doing so you'd have to give up the idea that the earth is 6,000 years old.

"I wasn't sure how to take that at first.....but like I said you're only one step away from it. "

And, frankly, I think you're only one step away from your counterparts, too.

"ok we know you like Galileo and I've repeatedly dealt with this subject. Do you want me to start bringing up scientific boo boo's as well? The science I grew up on is not the same science taught today. Much has changed."

I agree that a lot has changed. Scriptures that were interpreted as literal were suddenly proposed to be figurative in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary. I have no doubt that things will continue to change until someday your camp will just have to admit the Bible isn't inerrant.

"I'm going to see if I can get a real live Scientist to comment on this blog and since you, Baker like credentials, I'll go to the top and get one with a Ph.D after his name. The email is going out today. Oh and BTW I would be interested in your letter to AiG. "

Don't hold your breath. Religious folk believe we are wackos around here, remember, and it is best not to deal with us. If they do answer your call, I'll happily discuss it with them. Understand beforehand, though, that if there WERE answers, Ham wouldn't have it in black and white that there aren't. We'll just end up right back where we are.

You should see by now that you can't make creationist arguments in the frame of science, because your model doesn't come from science. Real science would leave those areas they don't have answers for blank, and religious people fill them in with the Bible, since it is supposedly true by default. If you can bring in someone that can answer my questions, great, but understand that no one has yet been able to.

I've asked you more than once to explain to me the criteria that goes into deciding what is literal and what is figurative in terms of science and you have never, ever answered. You didn't even address the answer to that question a few inches above this reply

ok fine, even tho I'm still waiting for an answer on why you take Gen 1:1 literally and not 1:2 and onward. So what question? This one?

No, and even Ham's model relies upon microevolution, given he believes that creatures exist now didn't exist at the time of Noah. Do you believe that there was a St. Bernard and a Chihuahua on the ark? God's work in nature is assuredly not done.

and I say according to scripture and Ham agrees here as do all creationists, that God was done creating on the 6th day. When he created all including dogs he put in a set program, genes for that dog. They can only go so far and nowhere else. That's how we get so many variations. If you want a mean agressive dog , you keep breeding mean dogs until you get a pitbull or whatever. The variations bring change but they do not stray from that molecular marker that God put in them from creation.

It's the same with humans. We have all kinds of variations in humans as well. We have Indians, Japenese, Aricans, Chinese, etc. Again we cannot go outside the markers but we can make different variations by combination. A fish is never going to grow an arm and a human is not going to grow an elephant's trunk. It's not allowed in the molecular markers to do so. There has been no new creations, only variations of what we already have. This is scriptural and scientific.

Is this the question? I'll take a stab at this.

Were "the waters" given the power to 'bring forth' creatures and fowl? Sounds what you'd call a "Deist" description to me. I can show you plenty of poetic license right alongside scripture that you take literally.

Well show me then. Go for it. The answer here would be no more than the dirt was given power to make man.

Again, very typical....check it all out Baker. Don't stop there. Notice what the next verse (21) says......"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Besides if you take it all symbolically, you can make it say anything you want to....and this does happen. So basically it's safer and makes much more sense to take literally especially since what we're talking here is history. When I take a history class I expect it's literal. When I learned that Washington crossed the Delaware should I have expected it to be figurative?

Let's go back and look at Gen 1:1 carefully. I'm thinking still that you have to take this verse literally right? How many false philosophies does this first verse refute?

1. Atheisim......because it's the work of God's hand
2. Evolution....because the earth was created, not evolved
3. materialism...because the earth did not always exist
4. polytheism....because there is only one God
5. pantheism......because God is apart and separate from His creation.

Ok, I answered your questions, now will you answer this? "Now I have to ask. Do you believe (as a Christian) that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth? If you say yes, you have just taken Gen 1:1 literally. You would be inconsistent in saying Gen 1:1 was literal but the rest is symbolic. How do you decide what is truth concerning the scriptures? Where do you begin? Where do you end? "

Interesting thread. This made me laugh out loud:
Link

Posted: Saturday, July 15, 2006Interesting thread. This made me laugh out loud:

me too!!! Thanks for the humorous link.

KFC:

Ok, I answered your questions, now will you answer this? "Now I have to ask. Do you believe (as a Christian) that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth? If you say yes, you have just taken Gen 1:1 literally. You would be inconsistent in saying Gen 1:1 was literal but the rest is symbolic. How do you decide what is truth concerning the scriptures? Where do you begin? Where do you end? "

Bakerstreet:

I decide the same way anyone else would decide, by judging whether it makes any sense at all literally. Saying that God created the heavens and the earth makes sense. Describing a procedure wherein it took six days, when the facts of nature conflict with it doesn't. YOU admit that there is figurative and literal scripture, and YOU refuse to answer the question of how you decide.

Unless my understanding is horribly warped, I believe that would be his answer, 2nd paragraph, Comment #271.

Let's go back and look at Gen 1:1 carefully. I'm thinking still that you have to take this verse literally right? How many false philosophies does this first verse refute?

2. Evolution....because the earth was created, not evolved

I differ. The evolutionary process has nothing to do with creation/formation of the earth.

Unless my understanding is horribly warped, I believe that would be his answer, 2nd paragraph, Comment #271.

no, you're right. I just missed it. Thanks for pointing that out.

"ok fine, even tho I'm still waiting for an answer on why you take Gen 1:1 literally and not 1:2 and onward. So what question? This one? "

Instead of waiting you could just read what I wrote in #261. Why do you ignore what I write?

"I decide the same way anyone else would decide, by judging whether it makes any sense at all literally. Saying that God created the heavens and the earth makes sense. Describing a procedure wherein it took six days, when the facts of nature conflict with it doesn't. YOU admit that there is figurative and literal scripture, and YOU refuse to answer the question of how you decide."

You aren't even waiting until the next numbered page to ask the same questions again, you're just ignoring my responses and posting them over and over now. I see no reason to believe that your heart can be softened, and for that reason, this will be my last post on this article. Eventually even people as long-winded as I have to shake the dust off their feet.

While I respect your beliefs I believe that you have adopted an idolatrous worship of a book. It is literally a 'good book' and I think it is truly inspired by God, and tells of God, and many of the things in it are accounts of things that truly happened. In the end, though, it is limited because it was written by man; and limited in understanding as much as the people were of the time.

I wish you all the best with your beliefs, and I hope that someday you will see that your belief in the inerrancy of the Bible isn't really such. We aren't arguing what the words are, but what they mean. The fact that you can hold to no other interpretation of Genesis 1 tells me that you really aren't preaching the inerrancy of the Bible, rather the inerrancy of your interpretation of it.

So, there's really no reason to argue with someone who believes that they know God's mind. Just as the interpretation of other verses have changed over the years, so might your interpretation of Genesis 1. That's a fact that you cannot admit, though, so you'll suffer the blindness that others suffered for hundreds of years. I feel for you.

If your big scary creationist scientists show up, I'll be happy to talk with them, but you have no interest in science that doesn't agree with your worship of paper and ink. I could tell you the sky is blue and you'd have to check with a book of uncertain authorship that never even claims to be inerrant. I hope someday it leads you to think more of your real connection to God, and then you won't need an inerrant book to hear Him.

I am not mean about it but I do say it like it is.

There seems to be a difference of opinion of what "is" is.