Creation v. Evolution: the danger of misplaced dogmatism

Post by VBM
I think that one of the most dangerous "stumbling-blocks" to the
presentation of the true Christian message comes from "misplaced dogmatism".
Here is an article I wrote to my fellow Christians regarding this problem
and I would love to hear their thoughts on the subject. And, for the
non-Christians, I would appreciate your thoughts as well, since it might
help my fellow Christians get a better "feel" for how this entire issue
might be effecting the presentation of the Christian message from your point
of view.
http://euangelion.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/creationism-v-evolution-the-danger-of-misplaced-dogmatism/
Thanks!

Ok, as a former Catholic (now atheist), let me be the first to say that
you've shown remarkable poise and honest candor in your prose. For that, I
congratulate you. Having said that (yeah, you know it had to come), I do
have a few issues I want to address. The first is this statement:

"Instead of focusing on the now overwhelming evidence for the God of the
Bible and on the complete accuracy of His Word [Ross believes that the
scientific evidence of an old universe actually provides strong support for
God's Creation], many within Christendom would have us discount this potent
new evidence, all for the sake of clinging to the rather peripheral (to the
Gospel) dogma of a recently-created universe."

Umm, what overwhelming evidence? What evidence outside of the Bible do you
have that the God of the Bible (or any God, for that matter) actually
exists? Surely you are't falling into the fallacy that "God exists because
the Bible tells me so".

Secondly, while I'll give older Earth Creationists the their due simply
because at least they recognize that the Earth is very old, I don't find
that their arguments that an old Earth proves requires a creator is any
better than the young Earth creationists. Both rely on faith (belief in
something for which there is no proof) in their arguments. And I'm sorry,
but that is not the way science is done, and is not the way we are going to
answer these all important questions.

And this is also where we differ. I think it is very important to know
where we came from, how it all started, and if there are any other
intelligent beings like us our there in the cosmos. Because such a
discovery would tell us not only what our place is in the universe, it also
tells us about ourselves, about who and what we really are.

And so I am a scientist searching for answers to these questions because I
think they are important to know. I cannot foresee all the repurcussions
of my searching will be any more than anyone else can. I only know that
the searching is part of the fulfillment of my life's work, and a way to
inner peace and security.

As for creationism in general, the problem, as I see it, is that the people
who promote it seem to want desparately to counter what they see as the
encroachment of modern science into ideas formerly explained away by
religious dogma. It's the "God of the gaps" problem, which refers to a
view of God deriving from a theistic position in which anything that can be
explained by human knowledge is not in the domain of God, so the role of
God is therefore confined to the 'gaps' in scientific explanations of
nature. And the problem with that is that as science is increasingly
pushing back the curtains of what formerly was religated to religious
mysticism to reveal the truth about our natural world, religion, and by
caveat, God, has been pushed into ever smaller and smaller 'gaps'. Many
religious people find that position to be very threatening, and I can
certainly understand their fear. Having said that, I over came it because
I recognized that only science can provide the best explanations for the
world around us, and that it is not something to be fear, but to revel in.
The light of discovery is very bright, indeed, and very hard to ignore.
Impossible, really, at least for me.

I am a geologist and an amateur astronomer. I've seen things on this
planet and in the 'heavens' above that most people don't give a seconds'
notice of. One cannot truly appreciate how vast and old this Earth is
until you learn to read what its strata has to say about itself, the
fossils contained therein, what its most primitive rocks and minerals say
about how the Earth formed, and how life evolved on this planet. The
chemistry, physics, and biology of it all is truly amazing, truly
compelling.

The speed of light and the fact that we can measure the distance to very
far away objects (and by feat, very old objects) based on that well known
constant is a testament, beacon-like, to the antiquity of the universe.
But unlike old Earth creationists (and YECs as well) I don't have to resort
to "God did it" to either explain it or to marvel in the fact that it
exists, and that I live on this wonderful blue dot. Indeed, resorting to
"god did it" simply provides no explanation at all.

And above all, I want to know. I want to know that the rainbow is caused
by the dispersion of sunlight through droplets of water which spreads the
sun's spectrum for all to see. Knowing this seemingly cold hard fact
doesn't diminish the experience at all. In fact, it enhances experience
because I can look up and say "I know what causes that", and be glad in the
knowing. Anyway, that's my two cents worth. Good article, though, all in
all. You said things that a Christian, above all, needed to say, and I
thank you for doing having the courage to do so.

George

Bob

2007-09-10 00:03:33 UTC

Post by George
I don't find
that their arguments that an old Earth proves requires a creator is any
better than the young Earth creationists. Both rely on faith (belief in
something for which there is no proof) in their arguments. And I'm sorry,
but that is not the way science is done, and is not the way we are going to
answer these all important questions.
And this is also where we differ. I think it is very important to know
where we came from, how it all started,.....

I think this is an area where both sides of the argument rely on
"faith". You cannot believe in God until you see proof of a God. I
cannot believe in the scientific argument until scientists can prove
that all past, present, and future matter in the entire universe
suddenly came into existence at the big bang. THAT is how it started
and where we came from. But where is the scientific proof of
everything from nothing to sway me to your side?? Where is the
scientific proof of dark matter and dark energy needed to balance
scientists equasions? Way too many unanswered questions on BOTH sides
of the argument! With no definitive proof on either side, all we can
do is have "faith" that our beliefs are correct.

Bob

George

2007-09-11 02:44:21 UTC

Post by Bob

Perhaps you should think a littler harder about the argument. Think of it
this way. You are a jurist deciding the fate of a man accused of murder.
11 of the 12 jurists have decided that the man is guilty. You are the only
hold out. Your objection to finding him guilty is that you believe that
somewhere out there in the world there might be the slightest bit of
evidence that would exonerate him. This, despite the man's signed
confession, despite the fact that 80,000 people at the Superbowl saw the
man commit the crime, despite the 100 cameras that caught the crime on
video from every conceivable angle. Still, you hold out hope that there
might be evidence out there somewhere that would find him innocent.

Yes, there might be some tiny inkling of evidence somewhere in the universe
that a God exists. But the fact is that in all the hundreds of years of
collecting scientific data, no scientific evidence exists that gives even a
smidgeon of proof for the existence of any God. And yet, despite the
facts, you would believe that one does exist. You wouldn't allow a doctor
to remove your liver unless all the medical/scientific options were
explored and evaluated. You wouldn't simply rely on faith that your doctor
actually knows what he is doing. You'd want some evidence that that is the
case. So if your belief in God is so all important in your life, why would
you do less? Why would you have faith in something for which there is
little to no confirming evidence, and for which there is unlikely ever to
be?

George

Bob

2007-09-12 02:02:07 UTC

Post by George
Yes, there might be some tiny inkling of evidence somewhere in the universe
that a God exists. But the fact is that in all the hundreds of years of
collecting scientific data, no scientific evidence exists that gives even a
smidgeon of proof for the existence of any God. And yet, despite the
facts, you would believe that one does exist.

I don't believe science will ever prove or disprove the existence of
God. Lack of proof of God does not provide "fact" that one does not
exist. To find proof would mean that God has physical properties, yet
throughout most religions God is seen to be a spirit or a force of
energy, much like the dark energy that science wants prove but
cannot. As I said previously, since neither side can prove their
argument, we will both rely on faith that our position is correct.

Bob

George

2007-09-13 00:49:06 UTC

Post by Bob

Post by George
Yes, there might be some tiny inkling of evidence somewhere in the
universe
that a God exists. But the fact is that in all the hundreds of years of
collecting scientific data, no scientific evidence exists that gives
even a
smidgeon of proof for the existence of any God. And yet, despite the
facts, you would believe that one does exist.

The lack of scientific proof for the existence of an omnipotent deity able
to suspend the laws of physics at will in order to "save" a single species
on a backwater world orbiting an ordinary star in an ordinary galaxy among
billions of galaxies in this vast universe, despite hundreds of years of
trying to acquire said evidence, doesn't mean that this deity DOES exist.
In fact, it begs the question. In addition, to suggest that we can find no
physical evidence of this diety because
it has no physical properties is just too convenient, isn't it? If we
cannot detect it, does that mean that it doesn't exist? No. Does that
mean that it does? Certainly not. It means that there is no evidence to
substantiate the claims for its existence. As for dark energy, it is a
hypothesis, not an established fact, and one that current research suggests
might not even exist:

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn12574-swiss-cheese-universe-challenges-dark-energy.html

The difference between science and religion is that science has a mechanism
to correct its mistakes. Religion, on the other hand, appears to be
designed (by men) to perpetuate mistaken ideas.

George

b***@juno.com

2007-09-14 02:55:53 UTC

Post by George
even a
smidgeon of proof for the existence of any God. And yet, despite the
facts, you would believe that one does exist.

Antony Flew, world famous ex-atheist, disagrees with you. This is the
same Antony Flew who first proposed in the 1950s the idea called "The
presumption of atheism." According to the presumption of atheism, the
default position ought to be atheism, until evidence shows otherwise.
Flew is even mentioned in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy in their
article on "Atheism." (Although I noticed he is missing from the
newest edition, and its not hard to figure out why, is it?)

So this world famous atheist just became a deist recently due to
modern science.

So my question to you George is:

What does he know, that you dont?

Post by George
The lack of scientific proof for the existence of an omnipotent deity able
to suspend the laws of physics at will in order to "save" a single species
on a backwater world

How did you determine that Earth is a "backwater world?" What was the
criteria that you used to decide that it was a "backwater?"

Post by George
orbiting an ordinary star

How did you determine that the Sun is an "ordinary star?" Who defines
what "ordinary" is in this case?

Post by George
in an ordinary galaxy among

How did you determine that we live in an "ordinary galaxy?"

Post by George
billions of galaxies in this vast universe, despite hundreds of years of
trying to acquire said evidence, doesn't mean that this deity DOES exist.

No, but biochemistry, along with many other sciences, says that God
DOES exist.

QED. (Quod Erat Demonstrandum)

Post by George
mean that it does? Certainly not. It means that there is no evidence to
substantiate the claims for its existence. As for dark energy, it is a
hypothesis, not an established fact, and one that current research suggests

George, George. You go on and on, trying to sound so certain and
confident. But you are just spouting pure baloney, nothing more. And
the parts of your posts that are not baloney, are just pedantic.

Post by George
The difference between science and religion is that science has a mechanism
to correct its mistakes. Religion, on the other hand, appears to be
designed (by men) to perpetuate mistaken ideas.

If Religion is ordained by God, it won't have any mistakes to correct.
Thus your above paragraph suffers, as usual, from a false premise.

---

[The situation with Flew appears to be complex. The Wikipedia article,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew, summarizes the current
state. While it appears that he still calls himself a deist, it's not
so clear that he is as confident in the arguments for a creator as he
was originally. As I understand it, the original issue was not so much
that he became a deist due to anything modern science understood, as
because he thought that science was not able to explain the orgin of
life. However in statements since then he seems to have said that
there are possible avenues for developing an explanation.

--clh]

George

2007-09-17 01:58:37 UTC

Post by George
even a
smidgeon of proof for the existence of any God. And yet, despite the
facts, you would believe that one does exist.

Antony Flew's claims have been refuted/questioned. Why do I have to keep
pointing these things out? You have access to Google, don't you? Do try
to keep up. Furthermore, many have questioned his claim to having actually
been an atheist. More likely, he was a fence sitter. And finally, since
Christianity holds that God is found through personal revelation, not
evidence, I have no obligation whatsoever to hold one person's revelation
to be any more true than anyone else's. Personal revelation is no better
than anecdotal evidence, and neither is acceptable as a scientific
investigative method. By the way, In a December 2004 interview he said:
"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far
and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent
Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins". Perhaps you should read Thomas
Paine's works.

Post by b***@juno.com
So this world famous atheist just became a deist recently due to
modern science.
What does he know, that you dont?

Probably not much. He just came to the wrong conclusion, as have you.

Post by George
The lack of scientific proof for the existence of an omnipotent deity
able
to suspend the laws of physics at will in order to "save" a single
species
on a backwater world

How did you determine that Earth is a "backwater world?" What was the
criteria that you used to decide that it was a "backwater?"

1) The Sun, and its planetary system resides on the fringe of an outer
spiral arm of the galaxy. 2) No stars closer than 50 light years have been
shown to have any planets orbiting them.
3) No stars in the local group contain any evidence of intelligent life
(there are no radio or other broadcast signals in the local group that does
not eminate from Earth).

In our own neighborhood, as far as industrial/space-faring civilizations,
we appear to be truly alone. I'm not saying that there is no life nearby.
I would be surprised if there weren't. But any form of life and
civilization are two completely different matters altogether.

Post by George
orbiting an ordinary star

How did you determine that the Sun is an "ordinary star?" Who defines
what "ordinary" is in this case?

Perhaps you should take an astronomy course, Bimm. The Earth is a normal
G2 V type main sequence star, one of the most abundant types in the galaxy.
In fact, it falls right smack in the middle.

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

Post by George
in an ordinary galaxy among

How did you determine that we live in an "ordinary galaxy?"

Perhaps you should take an astronomy class, Bimm. The Milky Way is
considered to be a very typical galaxy as compared with the millions that
have been studied.

Post by George
billions of galaxies in this vast universe, despite hundreds of years of
trying to acquire said evidence, doesn't mean that this deity DOES
exist.

No, but biochemistry, along with many other sciences, says that God
DOES exist.

Lies don't help your credibility, Bimm.

Post by George
mean that it does? Certainly not. It means that there is no evidence
to
substantiate the claims for its existence. As for dark energy, it is a
hypothesis, not an established fact, and one that current research
suggests

George, George. You go on and on, trying to sound so certain and
confident. But you are just spouting pure baloney, nothing more. And
the parts of your posts that are not baloney, are just pedantic.

Wow, an ad hominem. Why am I not surprised?

Post by George
The difference between science and religion is that science has a
mechanism
to correct its mistakes. Religion, on the other hand, appears to be
designed (by men) to perpetuate mistaken ideas.

If Religion is ordained by God, it won't have any mistakes to correct.
Thus your above paragraph suffers, as usual, from a false premise.

Religion is ordained by the men who create it and perpetuate its delusions.

Post by b***@juno.com
[The situation with Flew appears to be complex. The Wikipedia article,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew, summarizes the current
state. While it appears that he still calls himself a deist, it's not
so clear that he is as confident in the arguments for a creator as he
was originally. As I understand it, the original issue was not so much
that he became a deist due to anything modern science understood, as
because he thought that science was not able to explain the orgin of
life. However in statements since then he seems to have said that
there are possible avenues for developing an explanation.

But then, Flew was not a scientist, not by a country mile. I am (a
registered Geologist). Next.

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

Antony Flew, the son of a Methodist minister, was born in London, England.
He was educated at St. Faith's Preparatory School, Cambridge followed by
Kingswood School, Bath. During the Second World War he studied Japanese at
the School of Oriental and African Studies, and was a Royal Air Force
intelligence officer.

After the war, Flew achieved a first class degree in Literae Humaniores at
St John's College, Oxford. Flew was a graduate student of Gilbert Ryle,
prominent in ordinary language philosophy. Both Flew and Ryle were among
many Oxford philosophers fiercely criticised in Ernest Gellner's book Words
and Things (YYYY). A 1954 debate with Michael Dummett over backward
causation was an early highlight in Flew's career..[2]

Flew was a Lecturer in Philosophy at Christ Church, Oxford from 1949 to
1950, following which he was a lecturer for four years at the University of
Aberdeen, and a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Keele for
twenty years. Between 1973 and 1983 he was Professor of Philosophy at the
University of Reading. Upon his retirement, Flew took up a half-time post
for a few years at York University, Toronto.

Flew developed the No true Scotsman fallacy in his 1975 book, Thinking
About Thinking.

George

b***@juno.com

2007-09-21 02:37:45 UTC

[The situation with Flew appears to be complex. The Wikipedia article,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew, summarizes the current
state. While it appears that he still calls himself a deist, it's not
so clear that he is as confident in the arguments for a creator as he
was originally. As I understand it, the original issue was not so much
that he became a deist due to anything modern science understood, as
because he thought that science was not able to explain the orgin of
life. However in statements since then he seems to have said that
there are possible avenues for developing an explanation.
--clh]

Wikipedia is NOT a trustworthy source. (It is Heavily biased toward
liberals who want to reinforce their closed-minded group-think).

The real condition of Flew's mind, will be revealed in November when
he publishes his new book: (this is a link to the amazon pre-order
page)

http://www.amazon.com/There-God-Notorious-Atheist-Changed/dp/0061335290/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-5609035-8189707?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190313657&sr=8-1

---

[Wikipedia is not my only source. It's just a summary. --clh]

b***@juno.com

2007-09-21 02:37:46 UTC

Post by George
Antony Flew's claims have been refuted/questioned. Why do I have to keep
pointing these things out? You have access to Google, don't you? Do try
to keep up.

Have you read either of the books that convinced him? Or are you too
closed-minded for that?

I've read them both. They blew my mind, with the layer upon layer of
biochemical complexity that supposedly "just luckily happened" to self-
organize themselves with no God to assist.

Post by George
Furthermore, many have questioned his claim to having actually
been an atheist. More likely, he was a fence sitter.

No, he was a major proponent of atheism from the 50s until very
recently. So much so that he was mentioned in the Oxford Companion of
Philosophy article on atheism, as I've already mentioned.

Post by George
And finally, since
Christianity holds that God is found through personal revelation, not
evidence, I have no obligation whatsoever to hold one person's revelation
to be any more true than anyone else's.

You are wrong here too. Aquinas believed that God's existence could be
demonstrated. Flew is just continuing that long tradition, although in
a deist vein.

Post by George
Personal revelation is no better
than anecdotal evidence, and neither is acceptable as a scientific
investigative method.

However, it is precisely upon science that Flew based his conversion
to deism. Thus you are wrong here as well.

Post by George
"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far
and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent
Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins". Perhaps you should read Thomas
Paine's works.

I never claimed Flew is a Christian. I just claimed he is Deist.

Thomas Paine was also deist. And Paine's "Age of Reason" is a lengthy
attack on Christianity. Paine's arguments against Christianity are
based on the fallacy of treating God as a philosopher, rather than as
a storyteller.

God is not a philosopher like Plato. He is more of a storyteller like
Shakespeare. Exactly like Shakespeare sends evil to his characters,
God also sends temporary evil to us. And for much the same reason.

Big whoop. God will have mercy on us all at the end of all things. His
love will become absolutely triumphant at the very end!

God loves atheists, deists, and everybody else.

Post by George
Probably not much. He just came to the wrong conclusion, as have you.

Spoken like a closed minded person, who does not seem to even care if
atheism is actually correct. You are committed to atheism no matter
what, apparently.

Post by George
1) The Sun, and its planetary system resides on the fringe of an outer
spiral arm of the galaxy. 2) No stars closer than 50 light years have been
shown to have any planets orbiting them.
3) No stars in the local group contain any evidence of intelligent life
(there are no radio or other broadcast signals in the local group that does
not eminate from Earth).

Apparently you did not catch my humorous intent when I asked that.
Sigh.

<snip>

Post by b***@juno.com
No, but biochemistry, along with many other sciences, says that God
DOES exist.

Lies don't help your credibility, Bimm.

Calling someone a liar is a form of ad hominem. Whoops! Your bad!

Why don't you demonstrate to me how a minimum of 180,000 DNA
nucleotides "just happened" to arrange themselves into a self-
replicating structure, along with all the enzymes needed to zip and
unzip these nucleotides, for even the VERY FIRST DNA to even begin to
replicate itself. And it supposedly did this for no particular reason,
since God was supposedly not assisting with the process.

Post by b***@juno.com
George, George. You go on and on, trying to sound so certain and
confident. But you are just spouting pure baloney, nothing more. And
the parts of your posts that are not baloney, are just pedantic.

Wow, an ad hominem. Why am I not surprised?

Calling you pedantic is not ad hom. You ARE being pedantic, especially
when you tell me to "take an astronomy class" and other ridiculous
condescending things that you say, as if you are a professor wagging a
finger at his student.

Don't worry, I don't take offense. I just smile and return to the
actual argument.

Post by George
Religion is ordained by the men who create it and perpetuate its delusions.

Says you. Can you prove it? (Sound of crickets chirping).

Post by George
But then, Flew was not a scientist, not by a country mile. I am (a
registered Geologist). Next.

Are we supposed to be impressed?

I suppose that as a geologist you thought that the age of the Earth
disproved the Bible. It does not.

The Bible supports an old earth very plainly, both in the fact that
God was there hovering over some pre-existing "waters" in almost the
first verse of Genesis, and also in the fact of the Nephilim and Satan
himself already appearing in Genesis as fully formed.

Obviously Satan already had a long history when he tempted Eve. Not
only is there no mention of when Satan was created, but his entire
past history is not gone into. There is no mention of why he became so
wicked, he just is "there" in the very beginning of this version of
Earth. He probably had a several billion years length of history
before God created this version of Earth. Satan has very likely been
the tempter in multiple versions of Earth.

Likewise with the Nephilim who "appeard on the Earth" and began
breeding with mankind. (The Nephilim apparently even had similar DNA
to humans, which might explain hominid fossils prior to 4000 BC!)

George

2007-09-24 04:17:12 UTC

Post by b***@juno.com
[The situation with Flew appears to be complex. The Wikipedia
article,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew, summarizes the current
state. While it appears that he still calls himself a deist, it's not
so clear that he is as confident in the arguments for a creator as he
was originally. As I understand it, the original issue was not so much
that he became a deist due to anything modern science understood, as
because he thought that science was not able to explain the orgin of
life. However in statements since then he seems to have said that
there are possible avenues for developing an explanation.
--clh]

Wikipedia is NOT a trustworthy source. (It is Heavily biased toward
liberals who want to reinforce their closed-minded group-think).

Translation: Any source that hasn't been consecrated by Coral Ridge
Ministries or Liberty University is a biased, liberal source not worthy of
trust by the Bible thumpers of the world.

Post by b***@juno.com
The real condition of Flew's mind, will be revealed in November when
he publishes his new book: (this is a link to the amazon pre-order
page)

Who cares? Nothing Flew can babble on about is going to change the fact
that evolution occurs and that evolution says nothing about the origin of
life. Get over it.

George

George

2007-09-24 04:17:14 UTC

Post by George
Antony Flew's claims have been refuted/questioned. Why do I have to
keep
pointing these things out? You have access to Google, don't you? Do
try
to keep up.

Have you read either of the books that convinced him? Or are you too
closed-minded for that?

Biff, I could care less about Flew's anecdotes. Anecdotes aren't science.
Religion is revelational in nature. As such, it is completely subjective.
And as such, I am under no obligation to believe anyone's subjective
revelations over anyone elses.

Post by b***@juno.com
I've read them both. They blew my mind, with the layer upon layer of
biochemical complexity that supposedly "just luckily happened" to self-
organize themselves with no God to assist.

I'm not surprised you are so perplexed. Perhaps if you studied under the
tuteledge of a REAL biologist, you might be a little more understanding of
the subject at hand. Getting your biology from someone who specializes in
language philosophy is a bit like learning brain surgery from Mother
Teresea.

Post by George
Furthermore, many have questioned his claim to having actually
been an atheist. More likely, he was a fence sitter.

No, he was a major proponent of atheism from the 50s until very
recently. So much so that he was mentioned in the Oxford Companion of
Philosophy article on atheism, as I've already mentioned.

Post by George
And finally, since
Christianity holds that God is found through personal revelation, not
evidence, I have no obligation whatsoever to hold one person's
revelation
to be any more true than anyone else's.

You are wrong here too. Aquinas believed that God's existence could be
demonstrated. Flew is just continuing that long tradition, although in
a deist vein.

Well, you guys have had 2,000 years to demonstrate it with nothing to show
for it. I think it's time to concede defeat, Biff.

Post by George
Personal revelation is no better
than anecdotal evidence, and neither is acceptable as a scientific
investigative method.

However, it is precisely upon science that Flew based his conversion
to deism. Thus you are wrong here as well.

Wrong. Flew isn't even a scientist. He is a professor of philosophy (in
particular, language philosophy). If you want to understand the biological
sciences, Biff, Flew might not be the best expert you can find for the job.
In fact, he isn't an expert in biology at all.

Post by George
"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and
far
and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent
Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins". Perhaps you should read
Thomas
Paine's works.

I never claimed Flew is a Christian. I just claimed he is Deist.

A little background about Flew that perhaps you forgot to read about (or
perhaps it is what "blew you away"):

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

Flew has a long history of involvement in conservative politics. In the
late 1980s he became an active vice-president of the Western Goals
Institute, a pressure group opposed to immigration and free trade, and
supportive of apartheid

Post by b***@juno.com
Thomas Paine was also deist. And Paine's "Age of Reason" is a lengthy
attack on Christianity. Paine's arguments against Christianity are
based on the fallacy of treating God as a philosopher, rather than as
a storyteller.

God is neither since God doesn't exist. Man is the storyteller, not some
imaginary omnipotent deity that defies the laws of physics in order to
'save' one species out of the whole universe.

Post by b***@juno.com
God is not a philosopher like Plato. He is more of a storyteller like
Shakespeare. Exactly like Shakespeare sends evil to his characters,
God also sends temporary evil to us. And for much the same reason.

Oh really? I hate to break it to you, but that kind of logic has been used
to justify humanity's inhumanity to man (and ever other creature on can
think of) throughout history. "God did it". Get a clue. Santa Claus is a
lie, and so is God.

Post by b***@juno.com
Calling someone a liar is a form of ad hominem. Whoops! Your bad!

A liar is someone who lies. You are lying, hence, you are a liar.

Post by b***@juno.com
Why don't you demonstrate to me how a minimum of 180,000 DNA
nucleotides "just happened" to arrange themselves into a self-
replicating structure, along with all the enzymes needed to zip and
unzip these nucleotides, for even the VERY FIRST DNA to even begin to
replicate itself. And it supposedly did this for no particular reason,
since God was supposedly not assisting with the process.

There are other self-replicating molecules that don't consist of DNA, Biff.
Resorting to "God did it" doesn't explain them any more than resorting to
"God did it" explains DNA. No one, least of all geneticists and
evolutionary biologists, claim that DNA "just happens". Only creationists
and kooks make that claim, a claim that is yet another example of "lying
for Jesus". Really, Biff. For someone who claims to have the moral high
ground on this issue, resorting to lies to make your case is rather
hypocritical.

Wow, an ad hominem. Why am I not surprised?

I'm not an professor. I am, however, an expert in my field (geology). I am
also an amateur astronomer who has studied in that field all my life. So
when I see someone spouting BS, I call them on it. As do all of those in
talk.origins who read the same crap you post there that you post here.

Post by b***@juno.com
Don't worry, I don't take offense. I just smile and return to the
actual argument.

Post by George
Religion is ordained by the men who create it and perpetuate its
delusions.

Says you. Can you prove it? (Sound of crickets chirping).

People like you make the claim that God exists. That is not my claim. As
such, the burden of prood is on you, Biff. It's your claim.

Post by George
But then, Flew was not a scientist, not by a country mile. I am (a
registered Geologist). Next.

Are we supposed to be impressed?
I suppose that as a geologist you thought that the age of the Earth
disproved the Bible. It does not.

The Bible says nothing about the age of the Earth. That's the problem.
People intepret what it says to their own ends. You claim that it supports
an old earth. Others claim that it says that the Earth is 6,000 years old.
The actually data (from the Earth itself) tells a completely different
story. The fact is that the Bible is not a science book. Anyone who gets
their science from the Bible is fist full of cards short of a full deck.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/genesis.html

Enjoy,

George

B.G. Kent

2007-09-06 02:19:06 UTC

I tend to see Christianity in the actions of people.....and how they love
than by their adherence to a man-made book personally. Why? because to
me..adherence to a book is idolatry.

Bren

Hermano Lobo

2007-09-10 00:03:33 UTC

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 02:12:37 GMT, VBM

-------------------------------
In any religion, the dogma is the prevailing opinion of the ruling
faction, not necessarily God's idea. A good example is the development
of the concept of Hell in Roman Catholic Christianism. If you accept
evolution, you cannot accept the existence of Adam and Eve and you
cannot accept the dialogue between Eve and the Snake. You must
therefore start considering that in many cases what you read in the
Bible must be taken as a metaphor, a comparison or a simple figure of
speech. The following step might be to interpret that Jesus'
resurrection is also a metaphor. But to reject in the XXI century the
validness of the Evolution Theory is as extravagant as rebuffing the
Law of Gravitation.

Hermano Lobo

2007-09-10 00:03:33 UTC

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 02:12:37 GMT, VBM

VBM

2007-09-11 02:44:20 UTC

Post by Hermano Lobo
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 02:12:37 GMT, VBM

http://euangelion.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/creationism-v-evolution-the-dang

er-of-misplaced-dogmatism/

Post by Hermano Lobo

Post by VBM
Thanks!

I think you are creating a slippery slope where none exists. First, you
need not view Adam and Eve and the Garden, etc, as merely metaphor. The way
the ancient Israelites would have viewed it would be actual, real history,
but told using figurative, symbolic and even poetic language. That is not
quite the same thing as an allegorical or metaphorical reading. They would
have read it (and I think we should read it) as telling about actual past
events, such that there WAS a creation by God, which WAS systematic and with
a plan, God DID create Mankind in His image, and DID desire full communion,
but Mankind DID literally fall in some way through disobedience arising out
of selfishness, after having been tempted by Satan to do so, etc. Still
real history, just told using figurative language.

And, this would not logically lead at all to any disbelief in any claim made
in Scripture. We take each text on its own and determine the degree of
literal historicity that was intended. The Gospel accounts are written very
differently (and possibly up to 1,000 years later) than the Creation
stories. While not the same type of history we prefer today, there can be
little doubt that the Gospels are making very literal historical claims, and
the resurrection is absolutely intended as a literal historical fact. So,
it is not a matter of slippery slope when properly viewed.

zach

2007-09-12 02:02:07 UTC

... to reject in the XXI century the
validness of the Evolution Theory is as extravagant as rebuffing the
Law of Gravitation.

Newton's Laws of Motion and General Relativity are testable and have
been tested. Abiogenesis has not and probably cannot be.

VBM

2007-09-13 00:49:05 UTC

Post by zach

... to reject in the XXI century the
validness of the Evolution Theory is as extravagant as rebuffing the
Law of Gravitation.

Newton's Laws of Motion and General Relativity are testable and have
been tested. Abiogenesis has not and probably cannot be.

Abiogenesis is not evolution, which can and has been tested, and we have
actually observed new species evolve.

George

2007-09-13 00:49:06 UTC

Post by zach

... to reject in the XXI century the
validness of the Evolution Theory is as extravagant as rebuffing the
Law of Gravitation.

Newton's Laws of Motion and General Relativity are testable and have
been tested. Abiogenesis has not and probably cannot be.

Wrong. It can and is being tested. Has it risen to the level of a
scientific paradigm? No. That is not to say that it cannot or will not.
It means that more data is necessary to validate or invalidate the
hyopothesis. But enough data has been collected that leads scientists to
the conclusion that it is worth the effort to explore further, which they
are currently doing.

Having said that, abiogenesis and the theory of evolution are two
completely different things. The theory of evolution says nothing about
the origin of life. Evolution is descent with modification. Irregardless
of how life originated, evolution occurs. It has been documented in the
laboratory, in the field, and in the fossil record. And despite what
certain evangelicals may claim, there is no devil running around seeding
the world's strata with fossils constructed in its 'fossil factory' in
order to confuse scientists.

George

b***@juno.com

2007-09-14 02:55:53 UTC

Post by George
Wrong. It can and is being tested. Has it risen to the level of a
scientific paradigm? No. That is not to say that it cannot or will not.
It means that more data is necessary to validate or invalidate the
hyopothesis. But enough data has been collected that leads scientists to
the conclusion that it is worth the effort to explore further, which they
are currently doing.

Scientists have been saying this for the past century or more. How
long will they be "currently doing" this?

Post by George
Having said that, abiogenesis and the theory of evolution are two
completely different things. The theory of evolution says nothing about
the origin of life. Evolution is descent with modification. Irregardless
of how life originated, evolution occurs. It has been documented in the
laboratory, in the field, and in the fossil record. And despite what
certain evangelicals may claim, there is no devil running around seeding
the world's strata with fossils constructed in its 'fossil factory' in
order to confuse scientists.

Why is the moderator allowing this through? I thought evolution/
creation was off topic for this newsgroup.

But George, I encourage you to head over to talk.origins, where I
recently started a running tally for "actual evidence" for evolution.
Thus far, the evidence is rather slim, to say the least. And its not
for lack of trying from the pro-evolutionists.

Post by George
George

George

2007-09-17 01:58:37 UTC

Post by George
Wrong. It can and is being tested. Has it risen to the level of a
scientific paradigm? No. That is not to say that it cannot or will
not.
It means that more data is necessary to validate or invalidate the
hyopothesis. But enough data has been collected that leads scientists
to
the conclusion that it is worth the effort to explore further, which
they
are currently doing.

Scientists have been saying this for the past century or more. How
long will they be "currently doing" this?

For the past century? The greeks first made the suggestion in ancient
times. The first modern abiogenesis experiment was conducted by Stanley
Miller, in 1953. His experiments produced amino acids, but at the time, it
was thought, nothing more complex, and certainly nothing that reproduces on
its own. More recent experiments have found flaws in Millers experiments,
and in his analysis of the biproducts of the reaction. New experiments
conducted in the past few years, the results of which were published this
year, indicate that more complex molecules and enymes are produced. It is
only a mtter of time, Bimm. When biologists do manage to discover how life
comes about, are you going to poo-poo it, or are you going to sit up and
take notice?

Post by George
Having said that, abiogenesis and the theory of evolution are two
completely different things. The theory of evolution says nothing about
the origin of life. Evolution is descent with modification.
Irregardless
of how life originated, evolution occurs. It has been documented in the
laboratory, in the field, and in the fossil record. And despite what
certain evangelicals may claim, there is no devil running around seeding
the world's strata with fossils constructed in its 'fossil factory' in
order to confuse scientists.

Why is the moderator allowing this through? I thought evolution/
creation was off topic for this newsgroup.

Why would it be? Are you guys too afraid to discuss it or what? Perhaps
they allow it to get through in order to be "fair and balanced". But don't
think I didn't notice that you didn't actually respond to my statement,
above.

Post by b***@juno.com
But George, I encourage you to head over to talk.origins, where I
recently started a running tally for "actual evidence" for evolution.
Thus far, the evidence is rather slim, to say the least. And its not
for lack of trying from the pro-evolutionists.

I read your posts there on ocassion, Bimm, especially when I need a good
laugh. You certainly do get a thrashing there, that's for sure. I hate
that for you. If you think the evidence is rather slim, it is only because
you either 1) don't understand the evidence, or 2) ignore anything that
doesn't fit with your world view.

George

Bob

2007-09-18 04:25:43 UTC

Post by George
The first modern abiogenesis experiment was conducted by Stanley
Miller, in 1953. His experiments produced amino acids, but at the time, it
was thought, nothing more complex, and certainly nothing that reproduces on
its own. More recent experiments have found flaws in Millers experiments,
and in his analysis of the biproducts of the reaction. New experiments
conducted in the past few years, the results of which were published this
year, indicate that more complex molecules and enymes are produced.

Couldn't the second story of creation (Genesis 2) be interpreted to
say that all life on earth started with abiogenesis?
As it states, there was no vegetation on the earth, just dirt and
water. "Then God formed man from the clay of the earth." Since man
obviously could not survive in that environment, if you substitute
"life" for "man", with man coming much later, abiogenesis/evolution
would fit the the story very well.
Which then makes one wonder how the earliest biblical writers had the
same basic theory as modern scientists.

Bob

George

2007-09-19 02:42:54 UTC

Post by Bob

Post by George
The first modern abiogenesis experiment was conducted by Stanley
Miller, in 1953. His experiments produced amino acids, but at the time,
it
was thought, nothing more complex, and certainly nothing that reproduces
on
its own. More recent experiments have found flaws in Millers
experiments,
and in his analysis of the biproducts of the reaction. New experiments
conducted in the past few years, the results of which were published
this
year, indicate that more complex molecules and enymes are produced.

Some Christians do interpret it that way. The problem here is that clay is
not organic. It is a mineral (several, actually). Abiogenesis says that
self-replicating life originated from complex organic molecules. As an
aside, why does Genesis have two completely contradictory creation stories
(Genesis 1 and Genesis 2)? Couldn't God make up his mind how he did it?
Secondly, using the Bible as a science book is just plain silly. It's not a
science book.

George

b***@juno.com

2007-09-21 02:37:46 UTC

Post by George
year, indicate that more complex molecules and enymes are produced. It is
only a mtter of time, Bimm. When biologists do manage to discover how life
comes about, are you going to poo-poo it, or are you going to sit up and
take notice?

If biologists ever discover a mechanism for how life came from non-
life, (highly dubious in my view) it will merely confirm that Jesus
could quite easily have risen from the dead.

Both abiogenesis, and Christ's resurrection, are examples of life
coming from non-life.

If you accept that life can come from non-life in the case of the
first living cell (from chemicals that had been dead for billions of
years)..... then there is no reason to not accept that life can also
come from non-life int he case of Jesus Christ (from a body that had
been dead for only three days).

Post by George
Why would it be? Are you guys too afraid to discuss it or what? Perhaps
they allow it to get through in order to be "fair and balanced". But don't
think I didn't notice that you didn't actually respond to my statement,
above.

I did not respond because it is supposedly off-limits. I've tried to
respond to such posts in the past, and had my posts rejected. That's
okay, that is why I started posting at talk.origins. The truth has to
get out somehow.

Post by George
I read your posts there on ocassion, Bimm, especially when I need a good
laugh. You certainly do get a thrashing there, that's for sure.

I get a "thrashing" in the form of ad homs. The level of use of the ad
hom fallacy is rather absurd over there. But I keep plugging away,
hoping that some of them over there actually have real evidence for
evolution. They don't, at least not yet.

Post by George
that for you. If you think the evidence is rather slim, it is only because
you either 1) don't understand the evidence, or 2) ignore anything that
doesn't fit with your world view.

False dichotomy. Again, although I can't go into it here, I encourage
you to head over there where you can join the rest of that gang as
they try to disprove my arguments...... through the use of the ad
hominem fallacy. (Whoops!) Needless to say, I'm not over-impressed.

Post by George
George

George

2007-09-24 04:17:16 UTC

Post by George
year, indicate that more complex molecules and enymes are produced. It
is
only a mtter of time, Bimm. When biologists do manage to discover how
life
comes about, are you going to poo-poo it, or are you going to sit up and
take notice?

If biologists ever discover a mechanism for how life came from non-
life, (highly dubious in my view) it will merely confirm that Jesus
could quite easily have risen from the dead.

Hahaha! That is just the top item in a long list of nonsensical items
you've posted here and elsewhere, and demonstrates quite clearly how little
you understand about what science actually says on the matter. It's just
another logical fallacy (either/or argument) in a list of logical
fallacies, and that, I'm afraid, is all you've presented thus far, Biff.

Post by b***@juno.com
Both abiogenesis, and Christ's resurrection, are examples of life
coming from non-life.

Thanks for proving my point. Try reading what biogenesis actually claims,
Biff. May I recommend that when you research the matter, you try reading
what the proponents of the hypothesis are actually saying?

Post by b***@juno.com
If you accept that life can come from non-life in the case of the
first living cell (from chemicals that had been dead for billions of
years)..... then there is no reason to not accept that life can also
come from non-life int he case of Jesus Christ (from a body that had
been dead for only three days).

Define dead? Your stomach contains hydrochloric acid and is used in the
digestive process. Without this acid breaking down your food, you could not
survive. It is a very reactive substance, Biff. So, is it alive, or is it
dead? Define dead? For that matter, define life.

Post by George
Why would it be? Are you guys too afraid to discuss it or what?
Perhaps
they allow it to get through in order to be "fair and balanced". But
don't
think I didn't notice that you didn't actually respond to my statement,
above.

Off limits according to who? I didn't notice it in the ten commandments,
so obviously your God hasn't prohibited such conversation. What are you
afraid of, Biff? I've posted here for several months, Biff, and no one has
censored any of my posts.

Post by George
I read your posts there on ocassion, Bimm, especially when I need a good
laugh. You certainly do get a thrashing there, that's for sure.

I hate to break it to you, but what did you expect? You spout creationist
nonsense that has been refuted so many times on that forum that the only
response left is to call it what it is - BS.