Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Call the police: Creationist finds interesting fossils

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG From the BBC:

The Albertan, who has a longstanding interest in fossils, was digging a basement for a new home in Calgar…

One is tempted to wonder whether the government-funded Beeb hack has any idea what digging out a basement in Calgary might even mean.

Aren’t we all eating pineapples now, instead of sweeping up our underground furnace rooms?

Whatever. Meanwhile,

“No, it hasn’t changed my mind. We all have the same evidence, and it’s just a matter of how you interpret it,” he told the paper.

“There’s no dates stamped on these things.”

But Dr Zelenitsky – while she might disagree about fossil dating – praised Mr Nernberg for his awareness of what the fossils were.

“Most people would have overlooked these – when these were uncovered, Edgar right away recognised them,” she told the paper.

“An ordinary person might have just seen blobs in the rock.”

Actually, he is not an “ordinary person”; he is an Albertan. 😉

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Now just for some fun, the iconic “Alberta” folk song:

Comments
F/N: Today's installment, part 4: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/fyi-ftr-part-4-what-about-paleys-self-replicating-watch-thought-exercise/ KFkairosfocus
June 2, 2015
June
06
Jun
2
02
2015
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PST
KF,
And, as these are abstract entities, though with an inevitable connexion to such physical entities as exist, the full set of natural numbers must exist, including that this grounds the transfinites. (snip)
Thanks, that's helpful.daveS
June 1, 2015
June
06
Jun
1
01
2015
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PST
DS, SA is in part anticipating what I am pointing to, once there are relationships, two-ness exists. It is part of the necessary substructure of reality. And, as these are abstract entities, though with an inevitable connexion to such physical entities as exist, the full set of natural numbers must exist, including that this grounds the transfinites. Once a world exists, a great number of connexions, truths, relationships etc must necessarily exist . . . a world requires a lot of things to be in place to exist. Where, nothingness proper denotes non-being, so that if there were ever an utter nothing, such would forever obtain. All of this then focusses the question I posed, echoing many before me: why is there something rather than nothing, and particularly, a unified yet diverse, coherent and at least partly intelligible world. Hence, issues over modes of being and non-being. KF PS: I think a lot of core Math is discovered not an arbitrary invention. A good part of why I do so is the bang there it is impact of the Euler identity 0 = 1 + e^ i*pi, which draws together so much of core math that it is astounding.kairosfocus
June 1, 2015
June
06
Jun
1
01
2015
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PST
Silver Asiatic @34: Thanks, that is some food for thought.daveS
June 1, 2015
June
06
Jun
1
01
2015
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PST
KF,
I am dealing there with set theory (beyond the naive form) and one way to the natural numbers, creating a succession of sets of ever increasing cardinality from 0 on up. In this case, it is embedded in the structure of any world that such may be done and so two-ness cannot not exist once there is not nothing.
(my emphasis) What I'm wondering is whether the bolded part is true. Does every possible world come "equipped" with ZF set theory? And also perhaps other alternate set theories? I'm assuming others have made this argument as well (it seems fairly reasonable to me). Do you know of any other sources which cite it? Edit: To take this further, do "aleph-null-ness" and "aleph-one-ness", etc., exist in all possible worlds?daveS
June 1, 2015
June
06
Jun
1
01
2015
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PST
daveS Sorry I misunderstood - thanks. Regarding KF's point:
. . . but there is no possible world in which two-ness does not exist
Since every possible world must be distinguished from/against nothing, then there is the empty set as an entity and the possible world as 1. Therefore there must be two-ness. That brings us to existence vs non-existence ... reality vs non-reality ... material vs immaterial ... and eventually true vs false. It's the foundation for logic which at its most primitive level is the measure of difference between things. To distinguish. That's why monism is illogical.Silver Asiatic
June 1, 2015
June
06
Jun
1
01
2015
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PST
DS, I am dealing there with set theory (beyond the naive form) and one way to the natural numbers, creating a succession of sets of ever increasing cardinality from 0 on up. In this case, it is embedded in the structure of any world that such may be done and so two-ness cannot not exist once there is not nothing. Wiki:
In standard, Zermelo–Fraenkel (ZF) set theory the natural numbers are defined recursively by 0 = {} (the empty set) and n + 1 = n ? {n}. Then n = {0, 1, ..., n ? 1} for each natural number n. The first few numbers defined this way are 0 = {}, 1 = {0} = {{}}, 2 = {0,1} = {{},{{}}}, 3 = {0,1,2} = {{},{{}},{{},{{}}}}. The set N of natural numbers is defined as the smallest set containing 0 and closed under the successor function S defined by S(n) = n ? {n}. (For the existence of such a set we need an axiom of infinity.) The structure ?N,0,S? is a model of Peano arithmetic. The set N and its elements, when constructed this way, are examples of von Neumann ordinals.
KFkairosfocus
June 1, 2015
June
06
Jun
1
01
2015
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PST
KF, I don't know anything about the calculus of possible worlds, but do you have a reference with some discussion about the following point?
. . . but there is no possible world in which two-ness does not exist. 13: To see such, begin with the set that collects nothing and proceed: { } –> 0 {0} –> 1 {0, 1} –> 2 Etc.
daveS
June 1, 2015
June
06
Jun
1
01
2015
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PST
Hi Silver Asiatic,
It seems you’re a believing Christian — if so, then you’d assert that there is evidence of intelligent design in nature, right? Again, if that’s correct, then you’re part of the ID community.
I'm actually an atheist, but I attend my wife's church when my work schedule allows (which is about half the Sundays per year).daveS
June 1, 2015
June
06
Jun
1
01
2015
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PST
DG, Thanks for kind words. Political messianism is a particularly popular and pernicious ideology (and I daresay idolatry) in our day. I go further, as anti-fascism was my first political position, absorbed literally at mother's knee. Today, many of us -- whatever our nominal position -- are horrifically close to looking for a Nietzschean, superman, above ordinary law and morality, rescuer of the identity group in the face of today's allegedly unprecedented crisis. KFkairosfocus
June 1, 2015
June
06
Jun
1
01
2015
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PST
daveS
Do you think scientific ID will ever come to a conclusion about the age of the Earth? Is that even a goal? If it isn’t, what does that say about the ID community’s interest in scientific progress?
It seems you're a believing Christian -- if so, then you'd assert that there is evidence of intelligent design in nature, right? Again, if that's correct, then you're part of the ID community.Silver Asiatic
June 1, 2015
June
06
Jun
1
01
2015
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PST
KF Having followed some of your links I ended up here http://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocus/resources/Mars_Hill_Web/Pol_messiahs.htm Not sure if it just me today but I got an adrenaline rush reading that. Good work!DillyGill
June 1, 2015
June
06
Jun
1
01
2015
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PST
nmdaveS
May 31, 2015
May
05
May
31
31
2015
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PST
DS, dating is not a general past of ID [albeit some facets of thought on fine tuning, but not all, are linked to cosmological theories that tie to the physics of large H-rich hot gas balls and typical discussions of say OoL or OOBPs use the currently generally used earth history timelines]. I addressed it in part as that is important for a citizenship level understanding of origins thought, its strengths and limitations. Again, issues of much greater moment are on the table, directly connected to the survival of our civilisation. As just one tiny slice, why is the presence of ISIS in Syria-Mesopotamia of significant civilisational interest and (more significantly) why is that not widely understood? Ditto, on the significance of Plato's warning as already cited and annotated above. KFkairosfocus
May 31, 2015
May
05
May
31
31
2015
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PST
KF,
DS, here is what I have had to say at 101 level on cosmology & timelines:
Do you have more to say at the 401 level? Even something tentative, such as "the evidence for an old Earth appears to be more compelling at this time"?
Secondary issues take a back burner when major and truly dangerous ones are in front of us.
Do you think scientific ID will ever come to a conclusion about the age of the Earth? Is that even a goal? If it isn't, what does that say about the ID community's interest in scientific progress?daveS
May 31, 2015
May
05
May
31
31
2015
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PST
DS, here is what I have had to say at 101 level on cosmology & timelines: http://iose-gen.blogspot.com/2010/06/cosmology-and-timelines-of-world.html Secondary issues take a back burner when major and truly dangerous ones are in front of us. KFkairosfocus
May 31, 2015
May
05
May
31
31
2015
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PST
KF,
all I say is, has it? Let the advocates thereof answer the case. They are of age, let them speak for themselves.
I'm a little surprised at your agnosticism. You truthfully have no opinion one way or the other?
If that does not get your attention bigtime, something is wrong.
I agree that equating a YEC with a member of the Taliban is unacceptable. The pastor at the church I attend preaches YEC when he discusses origins (which thankfully is rarely). I see no commonality between him and the Taliban. The worst I could say is that his strategy will turn out to be self-defeating, especially when the young people he preaches to realize that they have received false teachings.daveS
May 31, 2015
May
05
May
31
31
2015
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PST
PH, thanks. KFkairosfocus
May 31, 2015
May
05
May
31
31
2015
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PST
DS, all I say is, has it? Let the advocates thereof answer the case. They are of age, let them speak for themselves. Meanwhile, I find it of far greater moment that someone living in Canada -- Canada! Boringly well ordered, predictable, ever so well governed Canada, the Canada of Vimy Ridge and ever so many more battles for liberty, the Canada of my deepest respect . . . -- has had to cry out:
"I have followed some of the comments on local news sites such as the CBC and have found many of them disturbing to say the least. From people equating creationist’s to the taliban and as even being more dangerous. It’s now become political suicide to even hint that you believe in the literal creation account found in Genesis."
If that does not get your attention bigtime, something is wrong. KFkairosfocus
May 31, 2015
May
05
May
31
31
2015
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PST
PP: if you want to parody Paley, first learn all he said on watches, cf: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/id-foundations/id-foundations-12-additionality-paleys-self-replicating-watch-the-von-neumann-self-replicator-vnsr-and-the-inference-to-design/ Now, let us have a sensible discussion on how you get to a cosmos with terrestrial planets with intelligent, cell based life, that can look at rocks and freely, logically and responsibly ponder how such came to be. Then, let us contemplate how we come to a living, metabolising, self-replicating cell, with sidebars on Paley's self-replicating watch thought exercise. Then, let us ponder how body plans of sponges, fish and humans come to be, and how such may be fossilised. Then, let us ponder what all of these things are telling us about the very roots of being. Ready? KFkairosfocus
May 31, 2015
May
05
May
31
31
2015
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PST
KF,
I actually have little interest in the primarily theological, exegetical debates that are at the pivot of young earth/cosmos views on dates over origins.
Naturally, I don't have much interest in these things either. I'm interested in the scientific debate (to the extent it exists, which is not great). Echoing the plea for rationality in your last sentence, isn't it time "we" wake up and acknowledge that young earth creationism has failed as a scientific theory? I'm not attempting to stigmatize anyone, just asking that we face the facts honestly.daveS
May 31, 2015
May
05
May
31
31
2015
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PST
Axel I am currently replying to EL et al in a series for record: 1st: https://uncommondescent.com/design-inference/lets-discuss-elizabeth-liddle-i-do-not-think-the-id-case-holds-up-i-think-it-is-undermined-by-want-of-any-evidence-for-the-putative-designer/ 2nd: https://uncommondescent.com/irreducible-complexity/fyi-ftr-is-it-so-that-if-current-models-are-inadequate-and-actually-all-models-are-and-indeed-we-do-not-yet-have-good-ool-models-that-does-not-in-itself-make-a-case-for-design/ DV more to follow day by day for a little while. KFkairosfocus
May 31, 2015
May
05
May
31
31
2015
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PST
DS, I actually have little interest in the primarily theological, exegetical debates that are at the pivot of young earth/cosmos views on dates over origins. I leave it to those who are so committed to make their case. What is far more relevant and indeed is pressing, is the attempt to tar, stereotype and stigmatise Bible-believing Christians in general with the taint of dangerous fanaticism opposed to liberty and progress. This is based on grievous distortion of history, ethics, political philosophy and a host of other things, and frankly is a part of an ongoing civilisational disintegration that has me very deeply concerned. That leads me to the call to thought and action I have laid out here: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-2-gospel-on-mars-hill-foundations.html#u2xfrmn . . . which rests on the analysis of worldviews presented at 101 level here on (in context, a context that starts with Paul at Mars Hill): http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-2-gospel-on-mars-hill-foundations.html#u2_bld_wvu Frankly, I think our civilisation is suicidal, and in ways that remind me of the saying that whom the gods would destroy, first they rob of rationality. How else can one explain, say, the recent National Geographic attempt to recast the patently demonically mad Nero in positive terms? A big part of that suicidal bent lies in the folly long since exposed by Plato in The Laws Bk X, c 360 BC:
Ath. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave. from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . ], and not in legal subjection to them.
It is time to wake up, maybe -- God help us -- past time to wake up. KFkairosfocus
May 31, 2015
May
05
May
31
31
2015
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PST
KF,
We should therefore be duly restrained in our attempted reconstructions of the remote, unobservable actual past of origins, and we should be open to the idea that Someone who was there may have somewhat to speak to us about it.
Restraint is fine, but isn't it time to acknowledge that young earth creationism has been falsified? There is simply no way to salvage it given all the evidence we have today.daveS
May 31, 2015
May
05
May
31
31
2015
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PST
Actually, Plantinga highlighted the farcical nature of this nonsense EL has been peddling about the necessity for identification of a designer, when he focused on the madness, the sheer folly of the materialists' conviction that, since Darwinism is not proved impossible, therefore it's true? One day soon, when the worldly-wise will no longer able to even try to bamboozle the public into accepting that they, the academically-educated are incredibly smart, these sorts of elementary, logical derelictions will be preserved as classical proofs of the contrary case, i.e. that they can be as dumb, nay, more dumb, than anyone else. Indeed, the very humour of such contentions will be enjoyed to the full by all sections of society, as well as those theistic and deistic scientists who do so now. Specified complexity is actually 'overkill', isn't it? Truculent atheism, the most primitive of all religions, effectively induces brain- death.Axel
May 31, 2015
May
05
May
31
31
2015
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PST
R_S, You raise sobering issues. To begin to clear the air, I suggest we may find it helpful to first note from the most significant single work of modern science, Newton's Principia which was the work that launched modern science as a dominating intellectual movement because of the breakthrough it put in the public domain. Let us cite the General Scholium, effectively some contextualising remarks for the whole work in was it the 2nd edn:
. . . This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator , or Universal Ruler; for God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: these are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present; and by existing always and every where, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is every where, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and no where. Every soul that has perception is, though in different times and in different organs of sense and motion, still the same indivisible person. There are given successive parts in duration, co-existent puts in space, but neither the one nor the other in the person of a man, or his thinking principle; and much less can they be found in the thinking substance of God. Every man, so far as he is a thing that has perception, is one and the same man during his whole life, in all and each of his organs of sense. God is the same God, always and every where. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance. In him are all things contained and moved [i.e. cites Ac 17, where Paul evidently cites Cleanthes]; yet neither affects the other: God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance from the omnipresence of God. It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always, and every where. [i.e accepts the cosmological argument to God.] Whence also he is all similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power to perceive, to understand, and to act; but in a manner not at all human, in a manner not at all corporeal, in a manner utterly unknown to us. As a blind man has no idea of colours, so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can therefore neither be seen, nor heard, or touched; nor ought he to be worshipped under the representation of any corporeal thing. [Cites Exod 20.] We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of any thing is we know not. In bodies, we see only their figures and colours, we hear only the sounds, we touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the savours; but their inward substances are not to be known either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds: much less, then, have we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final cause [i.e from his designs]: we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. [i.e necessity does not produce contingency] All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. [That is, implicitly rejects chance, Plato's third alternative and explicitly infers to the Designer of the Cosmos.] But, by way of allegory, God is said to see, to speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build; for all our notions of God are taken from. the ways of mankind by a certain similitude, which, though not perfect, has some likeness, however. And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.
Unquestionably, one can adhere to ethical theism, and to the Biblical, Judaeo-Christian worldview and be not only scientifically literate but a contributor, even a major contributor, to Science. Indeed, the list of great scientists who were and are Christians has been long, distinguished and is yet growing. So, we must not allow ourselves to be fazed by those who would try to smear Christians with the blame for what the Taliban et al have been doing . . . which the very same people will immediately recognise is not even properly to be projected to all Muslims. To be Christian, and to take the scriptures seriously, is not to be extremist. And, to have moral concerns about dangerous or foolish or questionable but fashionable trends or fads -- e.g. we here in the Caribbean just had to deal with School kids naively playing the ill-advised Charlie Charlie game and going off into erratic behaviour or becoming obviously ill, in several territories -- is not to be extremist. Indeed, likely, it is the very opposite that is the case: the real extremists are seeking to turnabout the situation by projecting blame and accusations. A notorious propaganda tactic that too often works in situations where people are over-wrought, manipulated and prone to hysterias. It is time to start with worldviews foundations issues and put forth, consistently, a solid case for both the Christian faith and the wider framework of ethical theism. (I will be revisiting this at UD in the next day or two, DV.) In that context, it is no accident that when -- as Ac 17 reports -- Paul had to confront intellectual elites on the grounds for the Christian Gospel and discipleship, he began where they were. He highlighted that God is the root of reality and has placed us here with an adequate base to reach out to him. He did not go into Bible expositions to those who are not ready for such; he began from what is evident to all. This is the same approach we see in Rom 1:
Rom 1: 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith,5 as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”6 God's Wrath on Unrighteousness 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,7 in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. [Idols in pagan temples or lab coat clad museum or textbook reconstructions of a past on imagined powers of blind watchmaker mechanisms on imposition of a priori materialism makes but little difference to this] 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! . . . . 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. [ESV]
Those who demand the approval of evil are going to try to twist good into evil and evil into good, to accuse those who refuse to go along. This, we see in Isa 5:
Isa 5: 18 Woe to those who draw iniquity with cords of falsehood, who draw sin as with cart ropes, 19 who say: “Let him be quick, let him speed his work that we may see it; let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw near, and let it come, that we may know it!” 20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight! 22 Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine, and valiant men in mixing strong drink, 23 who acquit the guilty for a bribe, and deprive the innocent of his right! [ESV]
In that context, the credibility of the gospel and the scriptures will be under challenge and even dismissal. Paul's approach in Ac 17 and 1 Cor 15 is pivotal: the key offer of warrant for the Christian faith is the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, with over 500 witnesses, leading to the onward transformation of millions across the ages by the power of the Living God who stands behind the gospel. I find this video a good start-point for serious minded discussion of that bedrock foundation: http://vimeo.com/17960119 Once that is in hand, we can then address the pint that our attitude to the Scriptures should be that of our Risen Lord. And, on origins, Job 38 is humbling:
Job 38: 1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said: 2 “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? 3 Dress for action1 like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me. 4 “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. 5 Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? 6 On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, 7 when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? 8 “Or who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb, 9 when I made clouds its garment and thick darkness its swaddling band, 10 and prescribed limits for it and set bars and doors, 11 and said, ‘Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed’? [ESV]
We should therefore be duly restrained in our attempted reconstructions of the remote, unobservable actual past of origins, and we should be open to the idea that Someone who was there may have somewhat to speak to us about it. KF PS: I forgot to include the contribution of Biblical theism and especially Christians tot he rise of modern liberty and democracy a matter that is often distorted or even hotly denied in the teeth of evident facts, e.g. cf: http://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocus/resources/Government_under_God.htm#librtskairosfocus
May 31, 2015
May
05
May
31
31
2015
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PST
I am a YEC and I find it quite easy to defend.logically_speaking
May 31, 2015
May
05
May
31
31
2015
03:05 AM
3
03
05
AM
PST
As a Canadian I have followed this story with great interest. Mr Nernberg is a YEC and is on the board of directors of Big Valley's Creationist Museum. I have followed some of the comments on local news sites such as the CBC and have found many of them disturbing to say the least. From people equating creationist's to the taliban and as even being more dangerous. It's now become political suicide to even hint that you believe in the literal creation account found in Genesis. An MP in Canada James Lunney is now sitting as an independant because of his views. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/james-lunney-creationism-cyberbullying For thousands of years a literal approach to creation was not even questioned. Now your made to look like a backwoods hillbilly if you even mention it? http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/fossilized-fish-found-during-excavation-in-calgary-suburb-1.3090047 I realize that YEC is difficult to defend and am wondering if any of the members here would consider themselves to be YEC or perhaps once were: but you have given up that view?reverendspy
May 30, 2015
May
05
May
30
30
2015
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PST
Just to note KF, I think you were spot on about calling out Lizzies attempt to persuade posters to respond at her site rather than here. To suggest that the alternative to a site which sometimes unfortunately must moderate some discussions, is better done her way is ludicrous. What is so valuable about a website which allows posters to just spew hate rhetoric and childish abuse at will, without being forced to carry on a real conversation? He can she claim this is a positive environment. What level of childishness is too much for her? Apparently none. She stopped posting there for over a year, just because she claims she had to post at talkrational instead, and now she comes back and is singing the praises of her freeforall shoutfest? As someone else said, why would I need to follow you down that drain?phoodoo
May 30, 2015
May
05
May
30
30
2015
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PST
God created the heavens and the earth. God created rocks just as God created man. Man fashioned a watch from rocks. But isn't a rock a more awesome design than a watch? I believe so. The fine tuning required to create a rock on a heath boggles the mind. I mean it boggles a human mind. When you're hard core ID, you'll see evidence of design everywhere. In a rock on a heath on a tiny blue dot. Tiny blue dot lol. A fossil in a rock? Design Sensor overload:)ppolish
May 30, 2015
May
05
May
30
30
2015
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PST
1 2

Leave a Reply