Textbook author Douglas Futuyma has allowed us to know many of Darwin’s supposed truths over the years. Predictably, in an interview with Live Mint & The Wall Street Journal, Futuyma is allowed to get away with saying he “isn’t a believer” but making false statements about the beliefs of others.
Here’s the Live Mint/WSJ question:
Are you a believer?
And Futuyma’s response:
I’m not going to answer that. If I did then that would tend to colour the issue in a particular way and affect people’s reactions to whatever I have to say.
Now, why didn’t the interviewer (Jacob B. Koshy) stop it right then and there, and say: You tell me what you believe about whether this universe shows evidence of design or this interview ends. Now.
Why? Because his Live Mint/Wall Street Journal editor would never let him just confront profitable pop Darwin.
So Futuyma is allowed to burble on:
The point is that as an empirical fact, people are able to reconcile evolution and religion. Usually, the way this is done, is the way the Roman Catholic Church does and that is to say there is a God and he created the rules and gave energy and he left it to develop on its own.
No, sorry, Koshy, that is deism. Not even theism, let alone Roman Catholicism.
A person cannot even be declared a saint in the Catholic Church unless God is believed to have suspended the rules of the universe at least once as a result of that person’s prayers.
This isn’t even some kind of hidden doctrine. It is conventional Roman Catholic belief. Maybe you missed it if you listen to “religion” journalists who got trained in a typical J-school (and decided not to embarrass the Catholic Church by pointing out that it is not materialist, as if the Church would care).
So Futuyma burbles further, unhindered by fact,
These are the rules that science then tries to discover. I really don’t know if any religious person really believes that every biochemical reaction which is happening in my body is being controlled by God.
Most people worldwide believe that. Otherwise, why would they pray for healing? How could healing occur otherwise when all human efforts are exhausted?
It is a disgrace that so many legacy media still front stuff by people like Futuyma with reverence instead of questions. No wonder legacy media are declining. They should.
Actually, I think if you were to go up to people who are praying for healing from, say, cancer, and asked, “Why are you praying for healing when God gave you cancer in the first place?”, most would answer that God did not give them cancer – that it was a natural event – but that God can intervene to rid them of cancer.
Just how ‘natural’ can any event in the universe now be considered?
,,Quantum Mechanics has now been extended to falsify local realism (reductive materialism) without even using quantum entanglement to do it:
The falsification for local realism (materialism) was recently greatly strengthened:
Thus no matter how distasteful some things are to us that may happen in this world, to claim that they are ‘natural’ is to miss the point of what science now tells us:
Verse, and music:
And yes, which should be needless to say, at times it can be extremely difficult to understand why bad things are allowed to happen,,
How about this, then? What wickedness!
http://www.dallasnews.com/opin.....-you-think..ece
‘Is the theory that man evolved from animals compatible with the Bible?’
Let’s find out. Evolutionists generally claim that a population of animals gradually developed into a population of humans, denying that there was once only one man. However, the Bible presents a very different picture. It says that we originate from one man, Adam. The Bible account presents Adam as a historical person. It gives us the names of his wife and some of his children. It tells us in detail what he did, what he said, when he lived, and when he died. Jesus did not consider that account as just a story for uneducated people.
Luke traced Jesus’ genealogy back to the first man. (Luke 3:23-38) Also, when the apostle Paul spoke before an audience that included philosophers who were educated in the famous Greek schools, he told them: “The God that made the world and all the things in it . . . made out of one man every nation of men, to dwell upon the entire surface of the earth.” (Acts 17:24-26) Clearly, the Bible teaches that we descended from “one man.” Is what the Bible says about man’s original condition compatible with evolution?
According to the Bible, God made the first man perfect. It is impossible for God to make things any other way. The creation account says: “God proceeded to create the man in his image . . . After that God saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good.” (Genesis 1:27, 31) What is a perfect man like? A perfect man has free will and is able to imitate God’s qualities completely. A perfect man would live forever in perfect health, according to the Bible.
The fall from perfection explains why the human body, though marvelously designed, is susceptible to deformities and disease. Evolution is therefore incompatible with the Bible. Evolution presents modern man as an improving animal. The Bible presents modern man as the degenerating descendant of a perfect man.
The idea that God directed evolution in order to produce man is also incompatible with what the Bible says about God’s personality. If God guided the process of evolution, it would mean that he guided mankind into its present diseased and distressed state. However, the Bible says of God: “The Rock, perfect is his activity, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice; righteous and upright is he. They have acted ruinously on their own part; they are not his children, the defect is their own.” (Deuteronomy 32:4, 5) Therefore, mankind’s present suffering is not the result of God-directed evolution. It is the result of one man’s losing perfection for himself and his offspring by rebelling against God.
Taking into account the random sacrifice of Jesus (the foundation of Christianity), it’s easy to see, then, that evolution is incompatible with Christianity. If we doubt that “in Adam all are dying,” how can we hope that “in the Christ all will be made alive”?
Barb
Let me get this straight. You believe that we descended from one couple because of an age old book written by ancient men who believe in a deity that may not exist over modern scientific evidence from fossils and genetics that we can see and verify with our eyes? The same book that sets out to prove the very same thing it claims, meaning God exists cause the bible says so and it’s true cause the bible is from God? What causes these deformities from our descent from this once “perfect” man? Is it our sin? Do you have proof of that? Can you tell me that if I lie or steal or lust that this will degrade my genes or the genes of my children? Of course not. That’s just blind faith versus what we can verify. This is what irrationality is. Clinging to a belief that has zero proof and clearly has been refuted by modern science. I guess I shouldn’t complain too much because the polls are showing Christianity is dying. Your kids, grand kids and great grand kids will eventually wake up and realize the truth. When that happens, your religion will die even more.
Were you referring to Darwinism?
No need to complain then, you seem confident you’ll never answer to God when you die.
But with respect to an ancestor couple even Darwinists suppose there was an Eve who is the mother of all women (as traced through mitochondrial DNA) — they call her Mitochondiral Eve. And then Darwinists hypothesize an Adam traceable through the Y-chromosome. They call him Y-chromosomal Adam. So it’s not unreasonable to suppose some couple that were parents to all humanity.
With respect to humanity dying due to sin, Barb was referring to orginal sin. If you believe humanity’s gene are improving, you’re mistaken on scientific grounds alone. The human race is getting sicker with each generation, which by the way raises the question, why isn’t humanity dead by now? This is in superficial agreement with the genealogy of Christ.
But why should I complain either, if the Christian are right Darwinism will be meeting its end in due time when God calls all men into account. But since you think it’s all a myth, I find it astonishing you feel the need to sound off. I don’t believe in astrology, but neither do I visit astrology blogs to tell people they are irrational.
So why do I complain and rail against Darwin? Because science actually suggest there is good news for modern man if one is willing to follow the evidence where it leads.
That’s Ken Ham, that’s not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that the universe testifies of God’s existence if people are willing to consider the evidence fairly.
“Were you referring to Darwinism?”
Darwinism has a lot of evidence. The fossil record, similar DNA, morphology, vitamin C pseudogene, retro viruses, simpler to complex organisms in the strata, chromosome 2 etc. I know that IDists and creationists have counter arguments to these examples but it’s because they don’t want to let go of their beliefs so they try to find loopholes. One can’t look at the evidence objectively and not see that Darwinism does indeed fit. I used to be a Christian up until two years ago. I saw the evidence for evolution for the first time and started to lose my faith ever since. I didn’t just hand wave Darwin it away. The fossil record may have some problems but it clearly shows change and transitions from one form to another all through out.
“No need to complain then, you seem confident you’ll never answer to God when you die.”
I am not entirely certain of this because of the evidence for near death experiences but it doesn’t mean there is a God in the after life either. It could be that there is an after life that was “created” by nature but science has worked on it because of it’s roots in supernaturalism. Maybe the it’s nothing more that the quantum realm we survive in.
“But with respect to an ancestor couple even Darwinists suppose there was an Eve who is the mother of all women (as traced through mitochondrial DNA) — they call her Mitochondiral Eve. And then Darwinists hypothesize an Adam traceable through the Y-chromosome. They call him Y-chromosomal Adam. So it’s not unreasonable to suppose some couple that were parents to all humanity.”
This was just a name that we tagged on to describe the findings. It doesn’t imply a first human couple or that they were the only ones. It just means that it can be traced to one man and one woman.
“With respect to humanity dying due to sin, Barb was referring to orginal sin. If you believe humanity’s gene are improving, you’re mistaken on scientific grounds alone. The human race is getting sicker with each generation, which by the way raises the question, why isn’t humanity dead by now? This is in superficial agreement with the genealogy of Christ.”
I don’t dispute that the genes are degrading but it’s due to the laws of thermodynamics not original sin.
“But why should I complain either, if the Christian are right Darwinism will be meeting its end in due time when God calls all men into account. But since you think it’s all a myth, I find it astonishing you feel the need to sound off. I don’t believe in astrology, but neither do I visit astrology blogs to tell people they are irrational.”
If Darwinism is right, Christianity will be meeting it’s end in due time which has already started as I mentioned. I sound off against it because people should learn to think critically. There are so many unanswered questions within Christianity that no one pays attention to. Once people do, they lose faith. The internet is riddled with bloggers of ex-believers who want to let others know what they have learned. I sure do want there to be a God but I can’t bring myself to remain in the same place I once was.
“So why do I complain and rail against Darwin? Because science actually suggest there is good news for modern man if one is willing to follow the evidence where it leads.”
And it should be to evolution just as it is to an old earth, no first couple, no world flood, no Exodus.
“That’s Ken Ham, that’s not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that the universe testifies of God’s existence if people are willing to consider the evidence fairly.”
If the bible never existed, what proof of God’s existence would you have? Would you ascribe the laws to a law giver or deny evolution then or would you accept them as part of nature creating itself?
JLAfan:
LoL! None of those support a mechanism, so they cannot support darwinism.
The existence of life itself. Evolutionary theory (as in common descent) attempts to explain biological similarity in terms of common descent. Even granting that, the first life appears to be miraculous.
Second, some think that Quantum Mechanics implies there is a God. Whether true or not, it at least seems that physics doesn’t preclude and ultimate MIND.
Many of those are in doubt on scientific grounds alone, and time may show that those claims are fallacious. I respect that you think those are good arguments, but the problem of the fossil record actually argues against Darwin’s claims.
That’s not universally the case. That may be true of some, but not all.
They show puntuated change with intervening times of statis. Transition isn’t a fair word, especially Darwinian transitions. Transitionals are not to be found in the fossil record except for forced interpretations of skeletal remains, and further the most important changes are ignored since they involve soft tissue. Many transitionals couldn’t exist even in principle based on physiology and anatomy. The transitionals don’t exist because likely they were never there…
I respect that if you’ve not seen God face to face, that you might not believe. I respect that. However, critical thinking should not give Darwinism a pass, it’s a failure of a theory as has been highlighted in Uncommond Descent many times.
The details are extremely technical, but critical thinking usually is not swayed by simplistic answers. Darwinism is defended by simplistic, distorted interpretations of facts plus a lot of fabricated stories that have little basis in what we know about physiology and engineering.
If meticulous details bore you, then you won’t get to adequately understand the criticism of Darwin put forward. It is in the meticulous details that it becomes evident that evolutionism fails to explain the designs in life.
Don Johnson’s programming of life has never been challenged scientifically except by sophist type arguments. Don was an evolutionist, upon further consideration given his scientific abilities (which are quite exstensive) he rejected evolutionism.
Anyone seriously asking that question, in expectation of some well thought out answers, should look at this debate: Is Faith in God Reasonable? This is a good starting point for understanding arguments against naturalism and in favor of God.
God is the best explanation of:
1) Why anything exists at all.
2) The origin of the universe.
3) The applicability of mathematics to the physical world.
4) The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
5) Intentional states of consciousness in the world.
6) Objective moral values and duties in the world.
These and more are covered in the first half hour of the debate.
Arguments against naturalism, taken from Rosenberg’s premises of arguments in favor of naturalism:
Argument from intentionality:
1) If naturalism is true, I cannot think about anything.
2) I am thinking about naturalism.
3) Therefore, naturalism is not true.
Argument from meaning:
1) If naturalism is true, no sentence has any meaning.
2) Premise (1) has meaning.
3) Therefore, naturalism is not true.
Argument from truth:
1) If naturalism is true, there are no true sentences.
2) Premise (1) is true.
3) Therefore, naturalism is not true.
Argument from moral praise and blame:
1) If naturalism is true, I am not morally praiseworthy or blameworthy for any of my actions.
2) I am morally praiseworthy or blameworthy for some of my actions.
3) Therefore, naturalism is not true.
Argument from freedom:
1) If naturalism is true, I do not do anything freely.
2) I am free to agree or disagree with premise (1).
3) Therefore naturalism is not true.
Argument from purpose:
1) If naturalism is true, I do not plan to do anything.
2) I planned to come to tonight’s debate.
3) Therefore naturalism is not true.
Argument from enduring:
1) If naturalism is true, I do not endure for two moments of time.
2) I have been sitting here for more than a minute.
3) Therefore naturalism is not true.
Argument from personal existence:
1) If naturalism is true, I do not exist.
2) I do exist!
3) Therefore naturalism is not true.
Conclusion: metaphysical naturalism is absurd.
Those arguments use modus tollens and are logically valid. One must take issue with the premises in order to refute the arguments.
The whole debate is worth watching. Those listed above are non-biblical arguments in favor of theism. However a biblical quote is appropriate here:
One needn’t read the Bible in order to conclude that a transcendent God is the best explanation for the universe. The text of the Bible however is essential for one to seriously consider whether Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
JLAfan2001:
I believe in the authenticity of the Bible for many reasons, including the fact that it is scientifically and historically accurate. The main problem with evolution is not the evidence but rather the interpretation of the evidence.
Actually, no, because that is circular reasoning; I found it best to study the Bible and read it. I believe it, as stated above, because there is corroborating evidence for its authenticity from science, history, and archaeology. This is what’s known as critical thinking; it means you know what you believe and why you believe it.
Did you even bother to read my post? I discussed this earlier. You ask about deformities, and it was explained to you. Evolution presents man as growing ever better, but the facts show otherwise. Humanity has accomplished some great things, but physical human improvement isn’t one of them. Which fits the facts better: the Bible’s account of sin, or evolution?
This is what’s called a non sequitur: a logical fallacy that proves nothing. Lying or stealing does not degrade ones genes, only one’s dignity and self-respect. Lying might not degrade your genes, but would it cause your children to begin to distrust you? Furthermore, lying and stealing have absolutely nothing to do with genetics.
No, equating lying and stealing with genetic defects is irrational and silly.
Actually, many persons become Christians in adulthood primarily because of the evidence presented to them. You claim it has zero proof but, like most atheists, you haven’t bothered to look at any of it, which explains the condescending tone of your post. Yawn. Been there, heard it. Not impressed. Try again.
Modern science is what it is today because of the efforts of scientists over millennia who believed in God. Should we toss out all their scientific achievements because you don’t like religion?
Proof, please. What polls? The last time I checked, there were far more religious people on this planet than atheists. Provide evidence to back up your claim.
So, when a scientist claims that evidence X supports evolution and an IDist suggests otherwise, the IDist is always wrong.
Anyone want to point out the flaw in JLA’s thinking here?
Sounds to me like you did just hand wave it away. And it certainly doesn’t sound like you looked at any evidence objectively.
Um, tracing human genealogy back to one man and one woman would corroborate the Bible’s account. You do understand this, right?
No, it hasn’t, but then again, you haven’t looked at all the evidence and you certainly haven’t remained objective in doing so, either.
This from someone who equates lying with genetic defects. I see no evidence of critical thinking on your part.
Losing your faith because of what you read on an Internet blog is pathetic.
There are questions related to Christianity. Remember what Jesus said: “keep on asking, keep on seeking.” You obviously failed to do so. That’s your problem.
But evolutionists argue about the mechanics of evolution. Science should follow the evidence. Scientists don’t always do that; they are affected by peer pressure the same as everyone else. And you indicated that a first couple is compatible with science.
That’s actually an interesting question. I probably would ascribe the physical laws of the universe to a lawgiver, because that’s just common sense. Fred Hoyle, Paul Davies and Gerald Schroeder, all of whom are scientists and who have written on the subject would agree.
JLAfan2001 you stated:
Wow, you are the first Darwinist I’ve seen to admit that there is connection between entropy and the degradation of Genomes. ,,, A few facts that you may not be aware of though: A little known fact, a fact that is very antagonistic to the genetic reductionism model of neo-Darwinism, is that, besides environmental factors, even our thoughts and feelings can ‘epigenetically’ control the gene expression of our bodies:
Of related note to mental states having a pronounced epigenetic effect on genes (which is completely contrary to the materialistic presupposition of Darwinism), it turns out that having the positive ‘mental state of love’ has a tremendous impact on health:
Moreover the positive effect works both ways:
Of course from a Theistic perspective this tangible effect of love on health is to be expected,,
,,whereas from a materialistic perspective, well to put it mildly, from a materialistic perspective it is counter-intuitive:
Verse and music:
JLAfan2001, There is also a direct connection between human consciousness and the randomness of entropy as measured in the universe:
and,,
I once asked a evolutionist, after showing him the preceding experiments, “Since you ultimately believe that the ‘god of random chance’ produced everything we see around us, what in the world is my mind doing pushing your god around?”
Moreover,,,
The reason why I am fascinated with this Zeno effect is, for one thing, that Entropy is, by a wide margin, the most finely tuned of initial conditions of the Big Bang:
JLAfan2001, you may object that human consciousness is limited in its scope so as to effect the universe, but you would be wrong in that objection,,, Our free will conscious choices are now shown to be able to ‘reach back in time’ and effect the state of material particles:
Thus there direct evidence that human consciousness can have a direct effect on entropy, but how can that be if the randomness of entropy is suppose to be the main driving force of creativity for Darwinism?
Moreover,,,
In fact, entropy is also the primary reason why our physical bodies grow old and die,,,
yet it is this ‘entropy of death and decay’ that Christ overcame in his resurrection:
Thus JLAfan2001, I see no basis for your claim that sin is not related to entropy, since love is shown to lengthen life and conscious observation freezes entropy. Moreover Christ specifically overcame entropy, as witnessed on the shroud, thousands of years before entropy was even known about or related to Gravity.
Verse and Music:
JLAfan2001:
Wow. Sounds like you have quite a bit of studying left to do.
He’s not interested in studying, or even of being correct. His interest is almost exclusively in bolstering his current beliefs and telling himself that he is on the winning side in a game that doesn’t even matter by his own measure. That’s why any counterargument he comes across that he can’t answer, or any flaw pointed out in his reasoning, is written off as a ‘loophole’. The alternative – a good point, leading to a picture of the world that is less than certain in relevant ways – is actually pretty frightening.
I always marvel at that, actually. There’s this kind of person for whom self-criticism and self-doubt is an alien thing. They go from utter and total certainty that there is no God of any kind whatsoever, to complete and total certainty that God not only exists, but this particular subset of a subset of a religious view is utterly right. And the opposite too.
They can admit that they were utterly certain about what turned out to be wrong for 10, 20, 30+ years, but that is never taken as evidence that they should moderate their views, be more skeptical of their certainty or their ability to properly evaluate evidence. Their positions change, but the same failed habits and mentality remains in force.
Wow, talk about being carpet bombed.
Scordova
“The existence of life itself. Evolutionary theory (as in common descent) attempts to explain biological similarity in terms of common descent. Even granting that, the first life appears to be miraculous.”
This is a theory that UD’s pal VJTorley agrees with too. I noticed that when he spoke up about his agreement with common descent, a lot of people rallied against him for it. This is a guy who allowed to post articles in favor of ID by accepts the evidence for common descent. Does that mean he doesn’t know what he’s talking about either? Let him “teach the controversy”. Also, the last sentence is, of course, god-of-the-gaps.
“Second, some think that Quantum Mechanics implies there is a God. Whether true or not, it at least seems that physics doesn’t preclude and ultimate MIND.”
So does this statement refute the idea that science can’t test for God’s existence? I always heard that is out of the scope of science but I guess not. God is not supernatural, he’s quantum. Anyway, nothing that says that mind is the Christian God.
“Many of those are in doubt on scientific grounds alone, and time may show that those claims are fallacious. I respect that you think those are good arguments, but the problem of the fossil record actually argues against Darwin’s claims.”
Creation science have these in doubt not mainstream science. Mainstream science continues to support or else it would have left the theory long ago.
“There might be many reasonable arguments to reject Christianity. Evolutionism isn’t one of them because evolutionism isn’t scientific, it is speculation at best, and often falsified speculation.”
Creation science isn’t scientific either. It starts with the bible and tries to find proof of it’s validity which is also speculation.
“They show puntuated change with intervening times of statis. Transition isn’t a fair word, especially Darwinian transitions. Transitionals are not to be found in the fossil record except for forced interpretations of skeletal remains, and further the most important changes are ignored since they involve soft tissue. Many transitionals couldn’t exist even in principle based on physiology and anatomy. The transitionals don’t exist because likely they were never there…”
As I said, the fossil record does have problems but one can’t deny that it shows change over time. If the fossils were the same through out, that would falsify Darwinism. We have tiktaalik and archaeopteryx to start. I know that UD has challenged those but they are clear transitions.
Chance Ratcliff
Those are good arguments and they stand well because the bible exists. If the bible was never written, how would you view those arguments then? I suspect that people would be living their lives pretty much the same as they do now. People show that they can have a good life within the subjectivity of their lives. Christianity has shown to be just as subjective as any other worldview and that’s with the bible. Why would life be hell if we didn’t have it? I don’t see any strictly atheist counseling groups to cope with the loss of all that you named. People make due and move on. Anyway, who’s to say that Nihilism isn’t the right answer in life?
Barb
“I believe in the authenticity of the Bible for many reasons, including the fact that it is scientifically and historically accurate. The main problem with evolution is not the evidence but rather the interpretation of the evidence.”
The scientific accuracy of six day creation, or 6000 year old earth or a single pair or a world wide flood? The historically accurate Exodus, Jonah and the whale? The bible is also open to interpretation and that is also it’s problem.
“Actually, no, because that is circular reasoning; I found it best to study the Bible and read it. I believe it, as stated above, because there is corroborating evidence for its authenticity from science, history, and archaeology. This is what’s known as critical thinking; it means you know what you believe and why you believe it.”
Circular reasoning was the point I was making. You can’t use the bible to prove the bible. I already commented on the science and history part.
“Did you even bother to read my post? I discussed this earlier. You ask about deformities, and it was explained to you. Evolution presents man as growing ever better, but the facts show otherwise. Humanity has accomplished some great things, but physical human improvement isn’t one of them. Which fits the facts better: the Bible’s account of sin, or evolution? his is what’s called a non sequitur: a logical fallacy that proves nothing. Lying or stealing does not degrade ones genes, only one’s dignity and self-respect. Lying might not degrade your genes, but would it cause your children to begin to distrust you? Furthermore, lying and stealing have absolutely nothing to do with genetics.”
The fall from perfection explains why the human body, though marvelously designed, is susceptible to deformities and disease. Evolution is therefore incompatible with the Bible. Evolution presents modern man as an improving animal. The Bible presents modern man as the degenerating descendant of a perfect man.
This sentence implies that you think original sin is what is deforming our genes. That we have been failing ever since the fall. I can only assume it’s because of our sin. If that’s the case, where is your evidence?
“No, equating lying and stealing with genetic defects is irrational and silly.”
Again, that is what you seemed to imply. We were perfect and became imperfect after the fall. Adam lived to be 930 years and we live for only 90. Is that because of sin?
“Actually, many persons become Christians in adulthood primarily because of the evidence presented to them. You claim it has zero proof but, like most atheists, you haven’t bothered to look at any of it, which explains the condescending tone of your post. Yawn. Been there, heard it. Not impressed. Try again.”
Read my post again. I was a Christian up until two years ago. Before that, I was one for 20+ years. I looked into all sorts of arguments to keep my faith but I found that they all have counter arguments. EVERY SINGLE ONE. If God is the truth, there should be at least one irrefutable argument that the atheists just can’t answer.
“Modern science is what it is today because of the efforts of scientists over millennia who believed in God. Should we toss out all their scientific achievements because you don’t like religion?”
Of course not but a majority of scientists today are atheists because knowledge has advanced and we are finding that God has less and less to do. Would those same scientists still believe today after knowing all the gaps we have filled?
“Proof, please. What polls? The last time I checked, there were far more religious people on this planet than atheists. Provide evidence to back up your claim.”
There all over the internet. Try searching for them and you will see. Just the fact that Europe and North America is becoming more secular is proof of that.
“So, when a scientist claims that evidence X supports evolution and an IDist suggests otherwise, the IDist is always wrong.
Anyone want to point out the flaw in JLA’s thinking here?”
I can see what you are saying here but It just seems that evolutionists can see the evidence objectively where as ID tries to explain it away. I also agree that there is not one irrefutable argument for evolution but if it weren’t true, it would have been replaced.
“Sounds to me like you did just hand wave it away. And it certainly doesn’t sound like you looked at any evidence objectively.”
That’s true. I spend more time on Christian websites trying to convince myself than on atheist websites. So far, not much luck.
“Um, tracing human genealogy back to one man and one woman would corroborate the Bible’s account. You do understand this, right?”
Not exactly. If confirms that there was a woman and a man not one woman and one man. There could still be a population of 10, 000.
“This from someone who equates lying with genetic defects. I see no evidence of critical thinking on your part.”
You were the first to imply this, not me.
“Losing your faith because of what you read on an Internet blog is pathetic.
There are questions related to Christianity. Remember what Jesus said: “keep on asking, keep on seeking.” You obviously failed to do so. That’s your problem.”
I have asked, seeked, knocked, prayed, searched, begged etc. I have not found good answers. It seems to me that just because my conclusions aren’t the same as yours, I didn’t try to solve anything. That’s just plain wrong.
BA77
No offence but I can’t even begin to comment on all those links and posts. I concede just by sheer confusion.
Nullasalus
“I always marvel at that, actually. There’s this kind of person for whom self-criticism and self-doubt is an alien thing. They go from utter and total certainty that there is no God of any kind whatsoever, to complete and total certainty that God not only exists, but this particular subset of a subset of a religious view is utterly right. And the opposite too.
They can admit that they were utterly certain about what turned out to be wrong for 10, 20, 30+ years, but that is never taken as evidence that they should moderate their views, be more skeptical of their certainty or their ability to properly evaluate evidence. Their positions change, but the same failed habits and mentality remains in force.”
The only answer to his would be agnosticism. Either everybody is sure of their worldview or no body is sure of their worldview. Are you sure of yours? If so, then you are just what you described. If not, why should I listen to someone who’s not sure?
No, see – this is just a glorious example of the sort of mentality you have, and what you seem unaware of.
It’s possible to have a view, but to say ‘This is how I see it. I am fallible. I have these blind spots.’ Hell, in your case, your blind spot is ‘I spent years totally 100% buying a belief that I later found to be unbelievably broken.’
So you’ve told yourself that there’s basically two settings: full-on complete commitment or utter agnosticism. Gradations of belief, limited amounts of self-skepticism, are utterly unavailable to you. Hell, all evidence points towards the fact that such things utterly terrify you insofar as you’re aware of them. So you go for the headstrong commitment because, what, it’s worked out for you so far? It deceived you for 20+ years by your own reckoning. And the best part is – you could be wrong about that too.
So no, it’s not ‘everybody is sure of their worldview or no one is sure of their worldview’. There’s an additional option on the table, and considering the fact that you not only acknowledge yourself to have a humongous track record of being completely dedicated to beliefs that turned out to be completely wrong, but also your demonstrated inability to even cope with or accept arguments that trouble you (‘Oh they’re just loopholes!’), you should really second-guess yourself.
But you won’t. Because that’s scary. Better to at least feel sure when you damn well know you shouldn’t be (especially given your track record) than to entertain self-doubt and live in a world of questions, inconclusive answers, varieties of evidence towards multiple conclusions and ultimately recognizing your faith commitments.
You’ll cope.
I have no problem believing the earth is 4 billion years old, or believing that the universe is 13-14 billion years old. I believe that Adam and Eve were real people and that the biblical flood did occur. I also believe in the historical accuracy of the Bible, which includes the Exodus. I also believe that Jonah and the whale is not a fable.
You’re correct in stating that the Bible is open to interpretation. That is why I feel it’s important to not only read it but actually study it and determine which interpretion is the correct one, which best fits the facts.
I already stated that I studied both the Bible and evidence from science, history, and archaeology which corroborated the Bible’s accounts. That’s not circular reasoning, that’s critical thinking.
My evidence is the prevalence of birth defects, which could include cystic fibrosis or other diseases such as trisomy 21 (Down syndrome). The evidence is that man is not improving physically.
What fits the evidence best? The Bible’s account of man’s life being 80 or 90 years (Psalms) makes sense given that most people only live that long. Some might make it to the century mark or beyond, but that is rare. What other evidence do you need, besides mortality rates in the Western world?
So, in other words, you stopped asking questions and began doubting. Which argument against Christianity did you find most compelling? I’m actually curious. I’ve found that many arguments against Christianity are little more than logical fallacies dressed up to resemble actual, debatable premises. And most of the Internet-based atheists I’ve met have taken the position of “I don’t want to believe” rather than “I don’t believe”. You might be different, but that’s been my experience.
Probably. They were critical thinkers after all, and didn’t simply follow along blindly whenever somebody said something to them that they didn’t understand. They actively looked for answers and didn’t doubt that they would find answers if the kept looking. In other words, the opposite of what you did.
God has less to do? Says who?
Provide proof for your claim. Simply telling me to Google something isn’t going to work. BA77 at least provides links. You can certainly do the same. Unless you really don’t have any evidence for this claim, in which case it can be dismissed.
If there is no irrefutable argument for evolution, then it is merely a theory and (like the Bible) open to interpretation. Think about this: you claim that there are no irrefutable arguments for Christianity, which is why you turned to atheism. If there are no irrefutable arguments for evolution, then it can and should be replaced because it’s false. BY YOUR OWN LOGIC.
If I were you, I’d try reading the Bible.
The point remains that this evidence would confirm the Bible’s account as being factual and would be another argument against evolution.
JLAfan2001 at 5: “Can you tell me that if I lie or steal or lust that this will degrade my genes or the genes of my children? Of course not.” You implied it, not me.
Remember what Pontius Pilate cynically asked Jesus: “What is truth?” Think about that. What, to you, constitutes truth? Where would you look for it? Where would you know not to look for it? These are questions you should be asking yourself when thinking about what you believe and why you believe it.
JLAFan2001,
Well it’s quite impossible to imagine what would happen if the most influential book in human history was never written. However the arguments I presented at #10 are philosophical, and the video linked there goes into much more detail. You asked for evidence in favor of theism apart from the Bible, and those are such arguments. They are discernible without a Christian world view, and accessible to anyone who wants to hear how one can conclude that theism is the best explanation for the universe and its inhabitants.
JLAFan2001 as to:
Really??? Okie Dokie let’s see: You claim,,
yet we find,,
Not impressed JLAFan2001
JLAFan2001 you then claim
as evidence, Yet we find,,
Not impressed with your similar DNA evidence JLAFan2001
JLAFan2001 you then claim,,
,,as evidence. Yet when we look at the evidence we find:
Not impressed with your morphology evidence JLAFan2001
JLAFan2001 you then claim
as evidence. Yet when we look at the evidence we find:
Not impressed with your vitamin C pseudogene evidence JLAFan2001
JLAFan2001 you then claim,,
as evidence. Yet when we look at the evidence we find,,
In fact JLAFan2001, I could go on and on listing studies against ERV’s. i.e. Not Impressed!
JLAFan2001, you then claim
Yet when we look at the evidence we see,,
As to the overall pattern of simpler to complex in the strata, besides the necessity of ‘terra-forming’ the earth (which we have abundant evidence of) Dr. Wells gives an excellent reason for why the simpler to complex pattern is expected from a theistic perspective:
Not Impressed with your simpler to complex evidence JLAFan2001
JLAFan2001 you then claim,,
As evidence. Yet when we look at the evidence we find,,
Not Impressed with your fusion evidence JLAFan2001
You then state,,
Would that ‘etc’ you allude to JLAFan2001 include the demonstrated origination of a single molecular machine by Darwinian processes??? Now THAT would impress me JLAFan2001!
of related note to the fact that Darwinists have ZERO empirical evidence of Darwinian processes EVER producing a molecular machine, here are several examples that intelligence can do as such:
QED. Atheists,don’t mess with Phil!
Axel, though I appreciate the sentiment, I would much rather, as impossible as it may seem, that atheists not view this as a battle but as a search for truth.
JLAFan2001, I read somewhere the other day, though I can’t find it now, where I believe you gave a nod towards Near Death Experiences as potentially being valid. Which is a good thing since they have far more evidence going for them than neo-Darwinism has going for it:
Even though the researchers in this following study found evidence directly contradicting what they had expected to find, they were/are so wedded to the materialistic/naturalistic view of reality, the view of “I’ am my body”, that it seems sadly impossible for them to even conceive of the fact that they may be wrong in their naturalistic presuppositions, and to even admit to the possibility of the reality/truth of the soul, i.e. admit to the “I’ am a soul distinct from my body” view of reality.
But perhaps most importantly JLAFan2001, is that there is a stark difference in the NDE’s of Judeo-Christian cultures and those of foreign cultures. All foreign, non-Judeo-Christian culture, NDE studies I have looked at have a extreme rarity of encounters with ‘The Being Of Light’ and tend to be very unpleasant NDE’s save for the few pleasant children’s NDEs of those cultures that I’ve seen (It seems there is indeed an ‘age of accountability’). The following study was shocking for what was found in some non-Judeo-Christian NDE’s:
I could list several more studies along this line that show the stark difference in NDE’s, but to tie NDE’s more directly to Christianity I want to point out,,,
If scientists want to find the source for the supernatural light which made the “3D – photographic negative” image on the Shroud I suggest they look to the thousands of documented Near-Death Experiences (NDE’s) in Judeo-Christian cultures. It is in their testimonies that you will find mention of an indescribably bright ‘Light’ or ‘Being of Light’ who is always described as being of a much brighter intensity of light than the people had ever seen before.
All people who have been in the presence of ‘The Being of Light’, while having a deep NDE, have no doubt whatsoever that the ‘The Being of Light’ they were in the presence of is none other than ‘The Lord God Almighty’ of heaven and earth.
Based on your say-so?
Believe it or not, I don’t think God starts out each day wracking His brain for some way to convince atheists that He exists. Instead, He seems ever-so-content to reveal Himself to those who realize they are spiritually poor while confounding those who claim to be wise. He appears to reserve His grace for those humble enough to doubt, and is inexplicably pleased by those doubtful enough to require faith. But He scoffs at the proud and their certainties. Apparently, Godhood lends Him enough self-confidence that He doesn’t particularly feel a need to prove anything to anyone. Believe it. Or not.
Nullasullus
I guess I’m not getting what you’re saying. It just seems to me that you have adopted an agnostic relativistic position and are dogmatic about it even though you are against dogmatism. You have adopted a position that essentially says I don’t know it all, I’m open to correction, this is what’s true for me and everyone should feel this way. Your position is to have no definite position but to be swayed to and fro which Christianity teaches against. If I’m not mistaken you are a theistic evolutionist who believes in common descent. Why hasn’t UD rallied against you?
Barb
“I have no problem believing the earth is 4 billion years old, or believing that the universe is 13-14 billion years old. I believe that Adam and Eve were real people and that the biblical flood did occur. I also believe in the historical accuracy of the Bible, which includes the Exodus. I also believe that Jonah and the whale is not a fable.”
There is a problem here. How do you accept the historical accuracy of the bible but accept the earth to be billions of years old? You accept a world wide flood and the data doesn’t support that. It seems that you flip flop back and forth between accuracy and metaphor at least that’s what I see otherwise there can be no reconciliation. How and where do you draw the line between the two?
“You’re correct in stating that the Bible is open to interpretation. That is why I feel it’s important to not only read it but actually study it and determine which interpretion is the correct one, which best fits the facts.”
How and why do you know you’re interpretation is correct and is the best fit? Others would disagree with you. Why are they wrong? Christianity is just as relative as atheism is. If it doesn’t have a solid footing in all areas, how can one claim truth in it?
“I already stated that I studied both the Bible and evidence from science, history, and archaeology which corroborated the Bible’s accounts. That’s not circular reasoning, that’s critical thinking.”
What about the accounts that don’t line up with the bible like the world wide flood? How come the prophecy of Jesus’ return has happened yet after 2000 plus years? Why has no evidence been found for the Exodus after years of searching. Why are there no extra biblical accounts of Jesus post death appearances? He appeared to 500 people and no one wrote about this except his followers. That seems suspicious.
“My evidence is the prevalence of birth defects, which could include cystic fibrosis or other diseases such as trisomy 21 (Down syndrome). The evidence is that man is not improving physically.”
Again this could be due to thermodynamics which is natural and not sin which is supernatural. There is so evidence that the sin of lying would lead to have my genes degrade.
“What fits the evidence best? The Bible’s account of man’s life being 80 or 90 years (Psalms) makes sense given that most people only live that long. Some might make it to the century mark or beyond, but that is rare. What other evidence do you need, besides mortality rates in the Western world?”
Maybe the best evidence is that the ancients calendars were not the same as modern ones. July and August didn’t even exist until Roman times. Did the ancients even calculate 365 days a year? Lack of knowledge is better explaination than sin is.
“So, in other words, you stopped asking questions and began doubting. Which argument against Christianity did you find most compelling? I’m actually curious. I’ve found that many arguments against Christianity are little more than logical fallacies dressed up to resemble actual, debatable premises. And most of the Internet-based atheists I’ve met have taken the position of “I don’t want to believe” rather than “I don’t believe”. You might be different, but that’s been my experience.”
Doesn’t doubt imply asking questions? I would LOVE to debate the questions I have with you but it would have to be off thread because this thread has already been hijacked as it is. I do want to believe but I also don’t want to follow a lie either. I am open to the possibility that atheism is a lie as well. Actually, I’m more of an agnostic than an atheist at the moment.
“God has less to do? Says who?”
What’s he doing today? Is he causing floods, earthquakes and tornadoes like in ancient times? No. Is he healing people of disease? No. Is he ending pain and suffering? No. Is he making himself know with a booming voice or something? No. Is he still creating? No. What’s he doing then?
“Provide proof for your claim. Simply telling me to Google something isn’t going to work. BA77 at least provides links. You can certainly do the same. Unless you really don’t have any evidence for this claim, in which case it can be dismissed.”
http://secularist10.hubpages.c.....ristianity
http://www.thedailybeast.com/n.....erica.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....tness.html
There are lots more but I won’t post like BA77. There are also lots of Christian to atheist blogger sites everywhere. How may atheist to christian sites can you give me?
“If there is no irrefutable argument for evolution, then it is merely a theory and (like the Bible) open to interpretation. Think about this: you claim that there are no irrefutable arguments for Christianity, which is why you turned to atheism. If there are no irrefutable arguments for evolution, then it can and should be replaced because it’s false. BY YOUR OWN LOGIC.”
I knew this is where it was going. I admit, I stepped into this one. One point for you. I guess I don’t know what the truth is right now and this is why I am questioning. BA77, for example, has cited all those links to counter the examples I gave. I can’t tell if that’s good science or trying to find ways to break down the theory because it threatens religion. If all that falsify Darwinism then it wouldn’t be standing. Science just isn’t that dishonest. I know it’s not perfect either but there is no conspiracy.
“JLAfan2001 at 5: “Can you tell me that if I lie or steal or lust that this will degrade my genes or the genes of my children? Of course not.” You implied it, not me.”
Barb@1 “According to the Bible, God made the first man perfect. It is impossible for God to make things any other way. The creation account says: “God proceeded to create the man in his image . . . After that God saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good.” (Genesis 1:27, 31) What is a perfect man like? A perfect man has free will and is able to imitate God’s qualities completely. A perfect man would live forever in perfect health, according to the Bible.
The fall from perfection explains why the human body, though marvelously designed, is susceptible to deformities and disease. Evolution is therefore incompatible with the Bible. Evolution presents modern man as an improving animal. The Bible presents modern man as the degenerating descendant of a perfect man.”
This is essentially what I was writing about in the first place.
Chance Ratcliff
“Well it’s quite impossible to imagine what would happen if the most influential book in human history was never written. However the arguments I presentedat #10 are philosophical, and the video linked there goes into much more detail. You asked for evidence in favor of theism apart from the Bible, and those are such arguments. They are discernible without a Christian world view, and accessible to anyone who wants to hear how one can conclude that theism is the best explanation for the universe and its inhabitants.”
Of course this doesn’t prove the Christian God or the bible is true. It just means that naturalism my not be the only explaination for everything. Also, if naturalism is the only thing, people are faced with a choice of either dealing with the harsh reality of life or giving up on it. I know that seems crappy but it could still be true. It is possible that all forms of theism was invented to cope with the arguments you presented. Humanity couldn’t deal with life and death and created something greater than themselves to see them through. I believe psychology is showing that may be a real possibility. One could even argue that suicide is a from of natural selection to weed out the weak.
BA77
I know that you love to show all these links but it kind of proves the point I’m trying to make. Just about all the links you post are from sites that you favor. The evidence comes in supporting evolution and you look for evidence against it because you feel threatened by it. There has been some evidence shown here in the last couple of days with ATP Synthase and mutant cockroaches and creationists/IDists set out to disprove the claims rather than looking at them objectively. Science is not out to disprove God, but creationism is out to prove him. That’s biased. If we were to come across a crime scene where the victim is dead with 17 stab wounds and the suspect is holding a bloody knife, it would be reasonable to conclude the suspect murdered the victim. Not wanting the suspect to be prosecuted, creationists and IDist would say that it could be that the man just tripped on the knife 17 times and therefore the murder scenario is refuted especially since no one has witnessed it.
If Darwinian evolution is not true then one would have to say that God created the life forms ex nihilio at different times, in different places using the same DNA material. How can science test for that? If Homo Sapiens did not descend from a primate common ancestor then they appeared fully formed out of nowhere. That would be harder to explain than the current deficiencies in the fossil record, right? ID uses the Cambrian explosion as evidence then how would it explain that explosion. If you used the bible that could be considered circular reasoning.
Phinehas
“Based on your say-so?
Believe it or not, I don’t think God starts out each day wracking His brain for some way to convince atheists that He exists. Instead, He seems ever-so-content to reveal Himself to those who realize they are spiritually poor while confounding those who claim to be wise. He appears to reserve His grace for those humble enough to doubt, and is inexplicably pleased by those doubtful enough to require faith. But He scoffs at the proud and their certainties. Apparently, Godhood lends Him enough self-confidence that He doesn’t particularly feel a need to prove anything to anyone. Believe it. Or not.”
I understand that God doesn’t have to do tricks for the people or be it’s lap dog but I think it would be beneficial from time to time considering the stakes is eternal separation, don’t you? The last great miracle that he did was a couple of hundred years ago at best. If he only reveals himself to certain people then he would unfair in my book. It may not be a big deal to you but anybody could see that borders on tyranny. He doesn’t fell the need to reveal himself to everyone or anyone yet sends them to “hell” if they don’t believe in him.
BA77
Concerning the NDEs, it could be that all material is reduced to quantum energy and there is that in the processes of the brain. Quantum Mechanics also posits a multiverse scenario. It could be that the energy in our brain survives, since it can’t be destroyed, and moves on to other universes. It explains why so many NDEs are so different. It could just be natural not supernatural. Even Sal has suggested that there could be some kind of mind in the Quantum realm.
http://www.robertlanza.com/doe.....says-no-2/
@ JLAfan
I do not believe that we have yet had the opportunity to interact. I grant that this is a late addition to the thread, but I wanted to peruse the discussion as a whole before jumping in. First, I have a measure of sympathy for your situation. It is indeed a challenge to sort through the multitudinous arguments for and against the existence of God, the accuracy of Scripture, the plausibility of evolution (in its full-throated Neo-Darwinian sense), etc. I myself puzzled over these same questions for some time, and while I am quite confident in theism, specifically Christianity, I nevertheless maintain a deep interest in the arguments for and against.
Having said that, it’s hard to ignore the manifold deficiencies of your comments. For example, you state:
Your comment repeatedly emphasizes the antiquity of Scripture and contrasts this with the thinking of modernity. I would caution you that the bare fact that a resource is old does not constitute an argument against its accuracy. In essence, you are allowing the age of Scripture to prejudice your view of it. Another problem with your statement is that you evidently misunderstand exactly what the fossil and genetic evidence can really demonstrate. Fossil evidence allows us to state with confidence that organisms now extinct once existed. But that’s really about it. Common descent is often portrayed to be the natural explanation for the similarities evident in fossilized remains. In fact, common descent is often mistakenly elevated to the level of empirical fact purely due to the existence of fossils. This is outrageously fallacious, though. The fossils are an empirical fact; common descent is a hypothesis that is wholly distinct from the empirical fossil evidence. In the pre-Darwinian world, similarity between organisms was attributed to design archetypes. Genetics is a new science that is subject to revision as our knowledge increases. So it would be prudent to avoid deciding worldview-level questions based on a science that is in such a state of flux. After all, it was only a few years ago that Dawkins et al. were confidently proclaiming that the bulk of the genome is ‘junk,’ an assertion that is rapidly eroding due to the work of ENCODE and others.
This is confused and represents only a crude caricature of how believers view God and Scripture. The Bible does obviously claim explicitly to be from God (e.g. 2 Tim. 3:16), but it also indicates that the existence (and even the nature) of God is discernible from the natural world. Paul’s famed statement in Romans 1 indicates that even absent divine revelation persons are accountable to God because the evidence from nature is so forceful. As Barb made clear, we judge the inspiration of Scripture by evaluating its scientific, historical, and archaeological underpinning. You lampoon this, but I don’t think you’re seriously engaging the argument. A brief list of scientifically sound statements in Scripture include:
1. Gen. 1:1 – That the cosmos had a definite beginning
2. Isa. 40:22 – That the earth is round, not flat
3. Job 26:7 – The earth is suspended in empty space
4. Job 38:33 – The cosmos operates according to laws (not the whims of moody deities)
5. Leviticus 13 – Potentially infectious diseases should be quarantined
If you have an interest in historical corroboration of the Bible, I would recommend reading up on Josephus, Herodotus, and Tacitus.
I think you have picked up bad habits from reading internet atheist blogs. You are of course entitled to your view, but to make such highly dismissive remarks after having misrepresented the view you disagree with is distasteful. Has anyone actually made the claim that lying degrades the genome? Your comment is the first I’ve ever heard of such a thing. Think what you wish, but tone down the rhetoric. It smacks of arrogance and dogmatism, traits which are entirely inappropriate to a scientific perspective (which is always subject to revision).
It seems as though you’ve missed Nullasulas’ point by the widest margin possible.
JLAfan2001, your dismissive comment towards me, for lack of a better word, is insane. The blatant hypocrisy in it would be hard to top. For instance, out of the many comments that can be turned right around on you and be much more properly used against your position, you claim:
Yet it is the atheistic materialists themselves who are the ones who are dogmatically trying to impose their philosophical conclusion, naturalism, onto the scientific method prior to investigation i.e. Methodological Naturalism. Phillip Johnson exposes that dishonesty here:
And as was already pointed out to you, metaphysical naturalism is Reductio ad absurdum on AT LEAST 8 points:
Moreover JLAfan2001, out of all the contradictory things you have said, you hold that Near Death Experience are feasible. In fact you state:
Though I agree with you that there is nothing within known science that would prevent Near Death Experiences from happening, and indeed there is much evidence within science to strongly suggest that they are true and are to be expected, it is your position, atheistic naturalism, that is the position that presupposes that man does not have a soul that lives passed the death of his body.,,, I tell you what JLAfan2001, if you really do believe that atheists are willing to believe that a soul for man is likely, as you seem willing to believe since the evidence strongly points in that direction, why don’t you wander on over to PZ Myers, or Jerry Coyne’s, blog and start a discussion on that topic?,,, 🙂
footnote,,, ‘science’ is not even possible with Theistic presuppositions:
correction: ‘science’ is not even possible withOUT Theistic presuppositions,,
Because the Hebrew word rendered “day” in Genesis can refer to more than a literal 24 hour day. Why do you, as well as others, believe that every word in the Bible is meant to be taken literally when it is obvious to anyone with reading comprehension that this is not the case? What is stated in Genesis fits the facts.
I may have mentioned this earlier, but I don’t dispute the evidence: I dispute the interpretation of the evidence. You state that the data doesn’t support a worldwide flood, but consider, for example, the precise date recorded in the Scriptures. The second month of the ancient calendar ran from what we now call mid-October to mid-November. So the 17th day corresponds approximately to the first of November. It may not be a coincidence, then, that in many lands, festivals for the dead are celebrated at that time of year.
Other evidences of the Deluge linger in mankind’s traditions. Practically all ancient peoples have a legend that their ancestors survived a global flood. African Pygmies, European Celts, South American Incas—all have similar legends, as do peoples of Alaska, Australia, China, India, Lithuania, Mexico, Micronesia, New Zealand, and parts of North America, to mention only a few.
Of course, over time the legends have been embellished, but they all include several details indicating a common source narrative: God was angered by mankind’s wickedness. He brought a great flood. Mankind as a whole was destroyed. A few righteous ones, however, were preserved. These built a vessel in which humans and animals were saved. In time, birds were sent out to search for dry land. Finally, the vessel came to rest on a mountain. Upon disembarking, the survivors offered a sacrifice. What does this prove? The similarities cannot possibly be coincidental. The combined evidence of these legends corroborates the Bible’s ancient testimony that all humans descend from the survivors of a flood that destroyed a world of mankind.
You look at the facts. Christianity, unlike atheism, is not relative. Jesus emphatically stated “your word is truth.” Truth is that which corresponds to reality. That truth is relative is a disdainful attitude toward truth is shared by many today, including religious leaders, educators, and politicians. They hold that truth—especially moral and spiritual truth—is not absolute but relative and ever changing. This, of course, implies that people can determine for themselves what is right and what is wrong. (Isaiah 5:20, 21) It also allows people to reject as out-of-date the values and moral standards held by past generations.
One thing I found valuable in studying the Bible was to group scriptures by subject. That helped me to understand some of the main tenets of Christianity (the fall, the random, the Kingdom of God, etc.). To do this successfully, though, you need to keep and open mind and an open heart. If you’re reading the Bible looking for supposed contradictions or problems, then you won’t find the truths contained therein.
The flood is explained above. Jesus’ return is of great interest, and while it hasn’t happened yet, that does not mean it will never happen. Remember, God’s timetable is different than that of humans.
As far as the Exodus goes, consider: The New Encyclopædia Britannica, although claiming that the Exodus account contains “legendary elements,” nevertheless admits that “present-day scholars tend to believe that behind the legends there is a solid core of fact.” In speaking about the difficulty of dating Egyptian dynasties from lists of kings, Britannica also says: “The weakness of these lists as historical records is that they include only the names of kings deemed worthy of honour; many modest and certain unpopular rulers are wholly overlooked—expunged from the record.”
In the face of such historical inaccuracy and manipulation of facts, is it surprising that this devastating defeat for Egypt and her false gods was simply “expunged”? This becomes evident when we remember that those who recorded history did so under the tutelage of priests, whose chief interest, obviously, was maintaining their position and upholding the glory of their gods. But the Egyptians were not above altering historical records when the truth proved to be embarrassing or went against their political interests. When Thutmose III came to power, he tried to obliterate the memory of his predecessor, Hatshepsut. Says Egyptologist John Ray: “Her inscriptions were erased, her obelisks surrounded by a wall, and her monuments forgotten. Her name does not appear in later annals.” Similar attempts to alter or conceal embarrassing facts have even taken place in modern times.
With respect to Jesus’ resurrection, in the book of Acts, the Gospel writer Luke stated: “To [the apostles] also by many positive proofs [Jesus] showed himself alive after he had suffered, being seen by them throughout forty days and telling the things about the kingdom of God.” (Acts 1:2, 3) A number of disciples saw the resurrected Jesus on various occasions—in a garden, on a road, during a meal, by the Sea of Tiberias.—Matthew 28:8-10; Luke 24:13-43; John 21:1-23.
Critics question the veracity of these appearances. They say that the writers fabricated the accounts, or they cite seeming discrepancies in them. Actually, minor variations in the Gospel accounts prove that there was no collusion involved. Our knowledge of Jesus is broadened when one writer supplies details that supplement other accounts of certain incidents in the earthly life of Christ.
Were Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances hallucinations? Any argument along those lines is implausible, since he was seen by so many people. Among them were fishermen, women, a civil servant, and even the doubting apostle Thomas, who was convinced only when he saw the irrefutable proof that Jesus had been raised from the dead. (John 20:24-29) On several occasions, disciples of Jesus did not at first recognize their resurrected Lord. Once, over 500 people saw him, most of whom were still alive when the apostle Paul used that incident as evidence in his defense of the resurrection.—1 Corinthians 15:6.
Also consider that there is no such thing as a shared dream or a shared hallucination. If 500 people saw Jesus, then 500 people saw Jesus. There is no shred of evidence to suggest that these people were mistaken. Those who were fully convinced that Jesus Christ had been raised from the dead declared this truth fearlessly even though it could have meant their death. They could not have exercised such faith on the basis of a mere vision or on their imagination. Any attempts at deception would have been exposed at the time, as the enemies of Christians were bent on discrediting them and stopping their activity.
As far as extrabiblical accounts of Jesus go: The Roman historian Suetonius (c. 69-140 C.E.), in his history The Twelve Caesars, stated regarding the emperor Claudius: “Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Christ], he expelled them from the city.” This occurred about the year 52 C.E. (Compare Acts 18:1, 2.) Note that Suetonius expresses no doubt about the existence of Christ. On this factual basis and in spite of life-endangering persecution, early Christians were very active proclaiming their faith. It is hardly likely that they would have risked their lives on the basis of a myth. Jesus’ death and resurrection had taken place in their lifetime, and some of them had been eyewitnesses to those events.
Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century, wrote in reference to the death of Jesus: “That these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.”14 In addition, according to Justin Martyr, these same records mentioned Jesus’ miracles, regarding which he says: “That He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.”15 True, these “Acts,” or official records, no longer exist. But they evidently did exist in the second century, and Justin Martyr confidently challenged his readers to check them to verify the truth of what he said. Those are but two people who wrote about Jesus’ life and death.
If could be due to thermodynamics, but then again, God could have set that physical law in motion after the fall, too, couldn’t He? The fact is that you are aging and because of this process, your genes are degrading. Scientists don’t understand exactly why it happens; trees and turtles live longer than humans yet humans are far superior in terms of intellect.
Various calendar systems have been developed by men in the past, and a number continue in use today. Early calendars were mainly lunar calendars, that is, the months of the year were counted by complete cycles of the moon, as, for example, from one new moon to the next new moon. On the average, such lunation takes about 29 days, 12 hours, and 44 minutes. The months were usually counted as of either 29 or 30 days, but in the Bible record the term “month” generally means 30 days.—Compare De 21:13; 34:8; also Re 11:2, 3.
A year of 12 lunar months falls nearly 11 days short of a solar year of 365 1?4 days. Since the solar year determines the return of the seasons, there was need to adjust the calendar to this solar year, and this resulted in what are called lunisolar, or bound solar, years—that is, years in which the months were lunar but the years were solar. This was done by the addition of a number of days each year or of an additional month during certain years to compensate for the shortness of the 12 lunar months. Perhaps the problem is that you aren’t objectively viewing the evidence. You seem content to explain away anything that disagrees with your preconceived notions.
No, doubt implies that there is no real answer to the questions asked.
Just because He hasn’t ended pain and suffering according to YOUR needs doesn’t mean that He never will. How arrogant humans become when speaking about an almighty Being. They stamp their feet and practically have a temper tantrum, demanding that God acquiesce to their needs RIGHT NOW.
There was a blog called Atheism is Dead but I don’t know if its owner is still posting. I don’t typically look up atheist to Christian sites online because I have no need for them.
As for your first link, a Gallup poll is cited. I would agree that in some Western nations, particularly France, religion is fading. However, as a current resident of what’s called “The Bible Belt” in the US, I can tell you that religion is doing quite well. The same holds true for the second link; self-identified Christians may be declining. Other religions are increasing.
One thing to keep in mind when using a survey to find information: error is something that every researcher deals with when conducting studies. Respondents may not understand the question and thus not provide an accurate answer. Sometimes respondents may exaggerate in answering questions (prevarication bias). A good survey will show both validity in content and construction and reliability (meaning that the survey may be conducted twice with similar results).
I would suggest, though, that you look up some information that doesn’t simply confirm your preconceived notions as to what Christianity should be.
This is good. At least you are admitting that you could be wrong. I could be wrong, too. The main thing is that we critically analyze what we’re told and see whether or not it fits the facts and conforms to reality.
I agree that science isn’t a grand conspiracy. Linus Pauling famously stated that science is the search for the truth. This is why experiments are carried out and hypotheses revised. I don’t believe that Darwinian evolution threatens my religion; I think, however, that Darwin was himself looking for something besides God to explain life. Remember, he trained as an Anglican priest but his beloved younger daughter Anne died of illness, and this angered him. Could his research have been biased due to his disgust with God or religion? I don’t know for sure, but that is one possibility.
Other scientists have seen weaknesses in Darwinian evolution, most notably Michael Behe and Michael Denton, both of whom have written about the subject. But note the responses to their books; Richard Dawkins stated that if anyone didn’t believe in evolution that person was stupid, wicked, and insane. Why the hyperbole? Why the nastiness? Does questioning evolution really threaten Dawkins’ worldview that much? If so, why?