成人快手

todays show

really enjoyed ur show this morning with the 4 main Church leaders (or was that 3 at one stage - which one did he exclude that was defo a bit of a F slip)

And here a yuppie church if I were young enough I would say sign me up but I mean that is so wat Thatcher - and look at her now

The best question was by far the best - a simple one to start with and the answer to each of them was yea we like them all but we are the best christians! PLEASEEEEEEEe

Love the debate on the right of life for a child with severe disabilities ie dont answer the question. The one on when did life begin ... I think give up or went for coffee but couldnt not get over the crap they came out with.

Ok on the gay bit I know you dont have your fans but they totally farsed that one up

Now having heard that i think the COI came out slightly ahead of the other 3 (or 2 depending on who one viewed the show) but still was a grand wee natter for a hangover on a sunday morning - reminded me why i dont go to church.

I agree the church of the future will be leaner and to them stronger - they will just ignore the people that need them most

but like who cares ;-)

Fascinating that David Clarke said he is a theistic evolutionist... there will have been some angry Irish Presbyterians today! (Oh how I grin at the thought of some of the Presbyterians I know and their reactions to this earth-quaking news.) Am I right in saying that Clarke's views on this were previously pretty quiet?

And you could rename this creation special and call it instead 'ORIGINS: THE SHOWDOWN'; Dawkins? HA! And Livingstone? Ahhh- I wish I could be there.

My initial thoughts -
Evolution and an old earth are facts and although it may make interesting radio, I don鈥檛 really think it gets us anywhere 鈥榙ebating鈥� the subject. The vast majority of scientists accept the facts and indeed many devote their life鈥檚 work and large quantities of our money to pushing forward knowledge of the subject. They, in the main, are neutral on the god topic 鈥� they just get on with the work step by step and the supporting evidence accumulates every day and even more convincingly, no contradictions have ever been found
On the other hand most creationists are not scientists but believers and promoters of the supernatural myths of our ancestors. The very few who are scientists have no real knowledge of the physics chemistry biology genetics anthropology archaeology etc etc which is necessary for the real understanding of the subject. I have a bit more respect for the 鈥榯heistic evolutionists鈥� who I presume, propose that 鈥榞od鈥� kick-started the universe and got evolution going.
Evolution is a fact and cannot usefully be debated but the existence or otherwise of a god is a matter of faith and can be.

Alan- The fact remains that there are large portions of our society who do not believe that evolution occurred. That makes it quite a valid and quite an important debate. (For the record, I'm some variety of theistic evolutionist.)

To say "evolution" is a fact is a little vague. Alan seems to think that there is not much to debate? That's a little ignorant. You could put 4 evolutionists up on the stage and STILL have a debate about evolution (a fact which is well testified to in scientific literature for those people who want to bother actually reading it). When people say they believe in evolution what are they actually saying? What evolution theory are they in support of - and there are many? Vague statements such as "evolution is a fact" are normally uttered by people ignorant of the science. What mechanism of evolution are they referring to? What scientific research are they in agreement with? In my experience evolutionists - lay-man evolutionists - are just as ignorant as any young-earth creationist. What I typically find is that "evolutionists" are in support of a particular ideology - NOT a particular piece of scientific research.

SG

I am sympathetic to Stephen G's view on laypeople.
But creationists must at least wade through their secular education to draw a conclusion where evolutionists are often so without ever having thought through the issues at all.

I am a creationist by default; I have never heard credible answers to my doubts. (ie when will we ever find that troublesome definitive missing link between man and ape?)

If creationism was correct what more could the first people have done to tell us than to write the many similar creation stories from many cultures?

And should their eye witness testimony/evidence realistically challenge "theory" from scientists who werent actually there? After all, arent theories updated all the time?

Perhaps our biggest objection is creationism is not scientific, but that it could challenge us to believe in God and dump our often self-centred lives,

BY the way, there used to be genetics expert in QUB who was a creationist, dont know if he is still there.

I also understand there are many scientists of no faith who cannot accept evolution, never mind the faith oriented ones.

PB

PB- The fact that you're seriously suggesting that there were human eyewitnesses to the origin of the universe is indicative of....

....never mind.

Stephen you are just trying to muddy the waters.
Of course scientists can and do discuss their research 鈥� it鈥檚 called peer review!
But the basic fact of evolution - ( Darwinian! 鈥� is there any other?) - is not being debated 鈥� it鈥檚 just the details of the mechanisms of random mutations, natural selection and timelines which, as I say is progressing rapidly 鈥� just check the 成人快手 science/nature website - every newspaper or magazine 鈥� most TV and radio progs - advances are reported every day with no real disagreement. Are you really going to suggest the media is censoring the opposition of creationists to all these assertions to the truth of evolution? We and the media would love a laugh 鈥� if it wasn鈥檛 so serious.
The very few scientists that support creationism are generally considered to be cranks and PB cannot even name ONE who has any standing in his field - wheras evolution has the support of the leaders of all the scientific disiplines. Sorry - he does mention one but can鈥檛 remember his name 鈥� I can鈥檛 either - but one swallow can鈥檛 make a nest!
The science - especially genetics - that has and will increasingly in the next decade, produce cures and prevention for many human diseases, is the same science that endorses evolution.
Evolution is a complicated subject for the human mind, which has particular difficulty in comprehending timescales of millions or billions of years and it is very easy for creationists to raise doubts in the minds of the layman, offering simplistic supernatural explanations as a legitimate alternative. But we all that know their real objective 鈥� mistakenly 鈥� is to promote belief in their particular god.

Evolution is only a false religious philosophy nothing more, generated by atheistic scientific freethinkers and their supporters with theatrical imaginations; who are nothing more than false teachers who are trying to vandalize the clear teaching of the scriptures, the established fact is that evolution is beyond the reach of the scientific method, meaning that the theory of evolution is, consequently, not science at all. Is there scientific proof of evolution, no, simply is none.
Many people regard the Bible and science to be at odds with each other which causes them to reject the Bible without first examining the facts for themselves, science and the Bible are in full accord with each other.
Paleontology is consistent with the Bible, JOB: 40, V15; 41 V1, Astronomy is consistent with the Bible, Genesis 22:17, Jeremiah 33:22. The Bible is consistent with Meteorology; Job 28:25 The Bible is consistent with Biology Leviticus 17:11, the Bible is consistent with Anthropology, Hydrology, Geology and Physics which can be supported by the facts of the Bible; there is more science in the Bible than one can fathom, and it would actually be helpful if the skeptic resolved himself to read the Bible.
The year 1948 and the National Restoration of the Jewish Nation is further proof that Biblical prophesy supports the accuracy of the Bible which can be read in Ezekiel 37:1-10

ok Alan Watson and John Wright

now that you have finished your normal sneering session can I, as per normal, ask you to engage your brain and try and give a sensible asnwer to the questions.

Or is this the difficult bit where, as per normal, you slink off because you cannot give a serious defence of your preconceptions, though you think sectarian abuse is an adeuqate subsitute?

So much for religious tolerance guys!

back to post 6 questions please guys...

PB

By the way Alan

I think Stephen in post 5 has certainly given your scientific credentials a good battering.

What are your scientific credentials to speak to authoritatively on what most scientists think?

I am no scientist but is anyone going to challenge my assertion that science is also a worldwide "religion" where funding is key and "heretics" are still "burnt at the stake".

My point is, it is not enough on this blog to say what "most" scientists allegedly think, trying showing that you personally understand what you are talking about and engaging with others.

Can you answer my questions, post 6?

PB

Alan:

Sorry, but your response hasn't given me any indication that you have much of a clue on the subject beyond a bunch of typical lay-man's babblings and mis-perceptions.

But for the fact that I'm currently looking after a sick baby (and, to be honest can't really be bothered) I'd take this further with you.

Oh well, another time.

SG

I wonder how many of the contributors here would be itching to sneer at muslim beliefs on evolution???

pb

What strikes me more and more about these types of debates is that the discussions are taking place between the 'fundamentalist atheists' and the 'fundamentalist believers'.

Both speak from a perspective of 'certainty'. I think if both sides considered that their two worlds are really similar constructions i.e. 'models' on the science side and 'myths' on the religious side they might realize that there are truths to be found by both approaches.

I have defined the terms below as I am using them.

Certainty - Certainty is the state of being without doubt. Something is certain only if skepticism could not exist.

Doubt 鈥� Challenging some notion of reality in effect, and maybe hesitating to take a relevant action due to concern that one might be mistaken or at fault.

Skepticism 鈥� A disposition to incredulity

Model 鈥� The use of symbols or imagery in the outer world to understand physical phenomenon such as the nature of gravity or the nature of atomic fusion. (Use of the word 鈥榤odel鈥� by scientists does not imply that the concept is either true or false.)

Myth 鈥� The use of symbols or imagery in the inner world to understand metaphysical phenomenon such as the nature of love or the joy of laughter. (鈥楳yth鈥� in the common vernacular is unfortunately wrongly understood as something that 鈥榗an鈥檛 happen鈥� or isn鈥檛 鈥榯rue鈥� in contrast to the word 鈥� model鈥� which in the common vernacular is often understood as something that 鈥榗an happen鈥� or is 鈥榯rue鈥�. However, use of the word 鈥榤yth鈥�, by scholars does not imply that the narrative is either true or false.)

An example of a model in the science realm is the diagram we use for the hydrogen atom. The hydrogen atom is modeled as a point in the center of a circle to symbolize a proton with another point on the circle鈥檚 circumference to represent an electron. We use language (in this case mathematical language) to deepen this model鈥檚 utility by writing equations to describe things protons and electrons 鈥榙o鈥�. With the use of the model we have an understanding of how a 鈥榟ydrogen atom鈥� manifests itself but we still do not know what a hydrogen atom 鈥榠s鈥�.

Models are descriptions of the way things might be, but never are.

Myths refer to stories that, while they may or may not be strictly factual, reveal fundamental truths and insights about human nature, often through the use of archetypes. In the spiritual arena we create myths. An example of a myth is the story of the boy who was asked to guard the sheep against the wolves and to call 鈥榳olf鈥� to the villagers if they were threatened. As a joke on the villagers he called 鈥榳olf鈥�, they came and found no wolf, same thing the second time. The third time the wolf actually came and the boy cried 鈥榳olf鈥� but the villagers didn鈥檛 come. Why? They no longer had 鈥榯rust鈥� in what he said. We don鈥檛 know the historical 鈥榯ruth鈥� of this story i.e. did it physically happen at some place and at some time? But that is of no consequence because we have an intrinsic truth in the story of how 鈥榯rust鈥� can be lost by acting dishonestly.

Myths are descriptions of the way things never were, but always are.

Michael N Hull

I think you have made an excellent point about fundamentalist atheists and believers, I have previously discussed fundamentalist liberalism here (will not tolerate any views that conflict with liberalism).

However I do not fit into either category here, though I suspect you think I may have done. (read post 6 again).

I do not know enough science to be certain about creationism, but I have enough doubts to be doubtful of evolution.

I have invited evolutionists to explain and defend what I see as some weaknesses in their worldview, post 6, but as usual I get fundamentalist atheist/liberal sneering without any intellectual effort.

To me that is certainly fundamentalism in the worst sense, it bitterly defends dogma without willingness to reasonably reflect upon same.

PB

To PB:

First my personal opinion is that there is nothing wrong in your 鈥榖elief鈥� in creationism. You should continue to so believe but with one proviso.

I am using the definitions of 鈥榖elief鈥� and 'agnosticism' as follows:

Belief 鈥� Something about which one is agnostic. For example, one can believe that some horses like music.

Agnosticism 鈥� This applies to all things on which man has not yet been able to run an experiment to prove or disprove.

Horses may indeed like music but since it has not been proved that they do perhaps one should avoid using the word 鈥榗ertain鈥� when discussing the matter and use instead the word 鈥榓gnostic鈥�.

On the other hand I wonder why you set up your belief system as either ape or man? Why think in terms of separation and exclusivity? Human Beings are not an exclusive creation, they are part of all of creation which includes the apes regardless of how they or we got here.

Gnostics would define 'separation' as man's habit of separating everything into categories. You, me, us, them etc. that represent different categories of objects and ideas. If we think in terms of separation we will be able to process ideas only in terms of separation. However, if we have a consciousness based on 'oneness' (i.e. all of living things are one 'being', not just the individual 'self') the opposite will be true. We will no longer think in terms of us versus them, but rather in terms of I and Thou (I being the self as a part of the Thou being the whole of mankind and living things.

The intrinsic truth of the myths (see definition of myth in earlier post) surrounding the Jesus figure (and many other similar figures such as the Buddha) is the truth of 'oneness' i.e. love one another as you love your self and do unto others as you would have things done to you. That is, there is no separation between the one and every living thing.

In scientific terms I differ from you in a very small degree genetically. That鈥檚 why you don鈥檛 look like me. Both of us differ from the apes to a minute degree more genetically. Ergo, the ape is my 鈥榖rother/sister鈥�.

Our brains operate in three ways: intellectually, instinctually, and emotionally. What distinguishes humans from the rest of the animal kingdom spiritually is that they have a higher degree of the intellectual component of consciousness than other species.

Our brain operates intellectually when it adds 2 and 2 to get 4.

Our brain acts instinctually when it raises our blood pressure under fear or when it causes us to sneeze involuntarily.

Our brain acts emotionally when we experience love, hate, compassion etc.

It is the instinctual and emotional parts of our brains which drives us into sectarian conflicts (protection of territory and revenge, for example). The ape shares this with us.

The human brain exhibits its intellectual component by its urge to develop pictures and symbols. We became 鈥榟umans鈥� when we first made 鈥榓rt鈥�. The ape has a much lower ability to utilize this component.

We may refer to other species as 鈥榓nimals鈥� (although we are scientifically speaking animals also) but the fact is that we function mostly like animals when we use only the instinctual and emotional parts of our brains.

PB - Some of the missing links I think you were looking for
If you need more info try google or wikipedia

Homo

Homo habilis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo ergaster
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo cepranensis
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo rhodesiensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo sapiens idaltu
Homo sapiens (Cro-magnon)
Homo sapiens sapiens
Homo floresiensis

Alan

I will stand to be corrected, but I understand those are words to describe [theoretical] missing links.

Not actual missing links. Geddit?

I have little science, but I understand there have been no discoveries which cannot be fairly described as either fully man or fully ape.

Anyway, this is all somewhat of a red herring. The sum of Christ's teaching is to love God with all your heart and your neighbour as yourself.

Was Christ really God? Does he call us to put all on the cross and follow him? CS Lewis said we do not have the luxury of calling him a good man. He is either God, a lunatic or evil.

He is the man with whom we have to do.

PB

by the way Alan

I wonder if you have been brainwashed into the cult of evolution, if you will excuse the expression;

It appears you are afraid to try and think through problem questions with your position I put forward in point 6.

Until you do I cant take you very seriously on this.

PB

Michael

You wonder why in my belief system I divide this up into ape and men.

That is because as I understand it that is the reality of the evidence that has been uncovered.

I will stand to be corrected, but again, I understand there has nothing been discovered that cannot reasonably be put fully into one category or the other. That sort of puts a spoke into the wheel of evolution.

It is not blind dogma, I am open to challenge from any scientist out there.

So there is my answer, Michael, evidence, Michael, evidence.

I cant be certain about the science of creationism, but I am certain about my faith in the bible and God.

This is beyond the human mind, an acknowledgement that it is finite, mortal, vulnerable with a selfish and evil nature.

I would say faith is different to belief. Faith is trust.

PB

PB:

With apologies to Bart Ehrman (author of The New Testament 鈥� A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings) I should note as a minor point that the word 鈥淐hrist鈥� is a title and not a surname i.e. Jesus is known as 鈥楯esus the Christ鈥� or Christ Jesus. (The same is true, for example, of Leonardo da Vinci 鈥� his surname is not 鈥榙a Vinci鈥� which means simply from 鈥榁inci鈥�. His full birth name was "Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci", meaning "Leonardo, son of (Mes)ser Piero from Vinci.")

Readers living in the Greco-Roman world would not recognize 鈥淐hrist鈥� as a name. For most of them it was not even a meaningful title. The word 鈥淐hrist鈥� comes from the verb 鈥渁noint鈥�. Christ was a title in Jewish circles and used as the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word 鈥淢essiah鈥�. So we also have the term 鈥楯esus the Messiah鈥� and we don鈥檛 refer to Jesus as 鈥楯esus Messiah鈥�.

In post 12 I said that in the world of science we deal with model and in the spiritual world we deal with myth. Models and myths are the two ways symbol making humans describe their physical and spiritual realities. One is not better or greater than the other. Physics, chemistry, biology, medicine etc are all understood with models. Love, anger, suffering etc are all understood with myths. The Shakespeare plays are myth, as is poetry, the novels of Thomas Hardy etc.

In my humble opinion one should consider both models and myths as being sacred. (Sacred - From Latin, sacer, "untouchable鈥�. Deserving of veneration. Of utmost importance.) Thus the bible can be said to be sacred, as can the poetry of Keats, Newton鈥檚 Principia Mathematica and the model of the DNA double helix. All of these 鈥榮acred鈥� things help us to understand and move towards ultimate truths.

Evolution is a model 鈥� its a pretty good model at that and there is more work to be done in strengthening it. Further, the direction that evolutionary science is taking us indicates that the model is getting stronger with time not weaker. Evolution is a great creation story and is no threat to your faith in the bible and God. Indeed, I expect that most atheists, including Dawson (author of The God Delusion) would state that if God exists God is delighted that humankind is working on such an excellent model of the creation story.

With apologies to Richard Dawkins for spelling his name 'Dawson'.

PB and Stephen G
See today's Independent newspaper.
I presume you won't reject the research breakthrough announced there - which it is hoped, will lead to the major advances in disease control mentioned in a previous post - it is based on the same genetic research which has isolated the DNA of Homo Neandrathal and is determining their relationship to Homo Sapiens - in the news last week.

No Pb - We did not evolve from apes! Apes, humans and other modern primates have all evolved from a common ancestor. The evidence is out there - I haven't time to quote it all to you but I have given enough examples to get you looking, if you are interested and don't have a closed mind. You should have paid attention in school.
I like many others were brainwashed by religious myths from an early age and have not rejected them without much thought.
Of course that doesn't mean you HAVE to reject the god model. That's a different debate.
The pseudo-science of ID is dangerous to human progress in many fields and that is my main reason for strongly opposing any dilution of science teaching in schools, which would only have the effect of reducing the number and quality of future researchers.

Thursday, November 23, 2006

To Alan Watson:

Alan: You say 鈥淚 like many others were brainwashed by religious myths from an early age and have not rejected them without much thought.鈥�

I refer to my definition of myth in post numbers 14, 16 and 21.

I think that what you may be trying to say is that you were 鈥榖rainwashed by a literal interpretation and teaching of the religious myths鈥�.

As I mentioned in the earlier posts in the story of the boy who called 鈥榳olf鈥�, if historical research discovered that the boy never actually existed, would you then reject the myth as no longer holding a truth about honesty and trust?

As I mentioned in post 21 poetry, literature, and I would add music, are all mythological. One could take a Beethoven symphony and scientifically model it with mathematics and physics wherein one completely described the frequencies of the various instruments and their time distribution. Would you be interested in going to a symphony hall to read the mathematical manuscript presented by several speakers with power point presentations or would you prefer to have an orchestra be given the Beethoven manuscript to read, interpret it through a conductor, and play for your appreciation?

Alan, you also use the phrase 鈥楪od model鈥�. The concept of 鈥楪od鈥� can not be modeled 鈥� there is no physics, chemistry, biology or mathematics that can be applied to the concept. God can only be mythologised. That is where in my humble view the two sides are making the mistakes I discussed in post 14. The spiritual view of creationism is not science it is myth, and evolution is not myth, it is science. Shakespeare鈥檚 view of love as described in Romeo and Juliet is not science, it is myth. Yet we don't reject the plays for being such.

By all means reject literal interpretations of myths but do not reject the underlying truth and wisdom that they also contain. I think that is what David Clarke was saying in the preamble to this blog where it is stated 鈥淭he Presbyterian Moderator, Dr David Clarke, had no difficulty telling listeners that he was a "theistic evolutionist" and that he believed the first chapters of Genesis to be a poetic celebration of God's sovereignty in creation rather than a pre-scientific account of the world's origins".

I will be interested to see if Dawkins (The God Delusion) is prepared to allow Dr. Clarke to use the term 鈥榯heistic evolutionist鈥� or will he insist that only the term 鈥榚volutionist鈥� is appropriate.

One of the necessary mechanisms of the evolutionary argument or theory is mutations, a small accidental change in the biochemical structure of the gene, but this basis forms an inadequate argument, mutations do cause physical and physiological changes in organisms which are usually harmful and lethal almost always resulting in destructive regression not evolution, resulting in physical and mental handicap this is hardly the foundation of a evolutionary argument, such change is hardly a vital process to assist change in organisms causing advantageous development.

If positive mutations did happen how would they become established in the population based on rare occurrence? it does not happen and this is why there is still apes and monkeys who are still playing catch up with man, and they will never evolve into man.

Alan

Not impressed at all;- you are deliberately avoiding all my questions from post 6.

You give the strong impression you cannot think through your belief in evolution as this is at least the third time I have posed these questions and you have avoided them.

The fact that these scientists are using DNA from something they call a neanderthal does not prove is anything other than a monkey or a man.

I have previously chased down the facts on one of these missing links in a debate with a colleague and it turned out to have all the characteristics of a monkey.

PB

Michael

You have still not told me what evidence there is that any of the missing links were anything other than apes or men?

Have you ever actually looked at this issue or have you just swallowed it whole?

I am one of those people who likes to understand the world and test what is true and accurate and what is not.

I dont for a second believe evolution is a threat to my faith - but I do believe it is a threat to that of others.

I dont believe it is a requirement to be a Christian, but you are blind or a fool if you cannot or will not see how evolution is regularly used by atheists to dismiss the existence of God.

And the danger in this is, what else is going to give you security when we lie on our deathbeds and the life is slipping away?

Michael, unless you want to discuss evidence there's nothing more useful I can discuss.

sincerely

PB

Alan:

Before you make an ass of yourself and try to lump my position together with PB you should be aware that I am an evolutionist. My posts above were not directed against the theory of evolution but against bozos who shout off their mouths about evolution but who haven't paid diddly squatt's worth of attention to the actual scientific research - in other words, against IDEOLOGICAL evolutionists, which most "secular humanists" tend to be, as opposed to scientific evolutionists - which any rational person who wants the intellectual right to an opinion should be.

SG

PS...by the way you criticised PB for not being able to name a credible creationist scientist. I recently asked a few dogmatic "ideological evolutionists" to name credible evolutionary scientists: beyond Darwin and Dawkins most were stuck. The lesson? Probably as many evolutionists haven't a damned clue about the science either.

S.

Stephen

Again, as a sceptical creationist I find myself in sympathy with your criticism of lazy creationists and lazy evolutionists.

I cant name any creationist scientists, but to me that is a strength inasmuch as I am not depending on someone else to do all my thinking for me.

I am not impressed by anyone who defends their views by saying 'well he believes it'.

SG- I openly admit I have not studied much of the science in this field, but do you know of any related fossils which are without question neither man nor ape, ie a missing link?

I understand this has never happened, but I have never looked comprehensively at this field. Any thoughts SG?

PB

PB:

You ask 鈥淵ou have still not told me what evidence there is that any of the missing links were anything other than apes or men? Have you ever actually looked at this issue or have you just swallowed it whole?鈥�

PB, I am thoughly up to date on the science. I will provide the following piece of information if you wish to follow it up. If you want to argue against evolution I fear that you are going to lose.

Nearly Complete 'Missing Link' Skeleton Found in Ethiopia. Wednesday, September 20, 2006 Associated Press NEW YORK. In a discovery sure to fuel an old debate about our evolutionary history, scientists have found a remarkably complete skeleton of a 3-year-old female from the ape-man species represented by "Lucy." The remains found in Africa are 3.3 million years old, making this the oldest known skeleton of such a youthful human ancestor. "It's a pretty unbelievable discovery... It's sensational," said Will Harcourt-Smith, a researcher at the American Museum of Natural History in New York who wasn't involved in the find. "It provides you with a wealth of information." For one thing, it gives new evidence for a contentious feud about whether this species, which walked upright, also climbed and moved through trees easily. The species is Australopithecus afarensis, which lived in Africa between about 4 million and 3 million years ago. The most famous afarensis is Lucy, discovered in Ethiopia in 1974, a creature that lived about 100,000 years after the newfound specimen. The new find is reported in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature by Zeresenay Alemseged of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany; Fred Spoor, professor of evolutionary anatomy at University College London, and others.

You wrote 鈥測ou are blind or a fool if you cannot or will not see how evolution is regularly used by atheists to dismiss the existence of God.鈥�

PB: I assure you that I am neither blind nor a fool. Some 鈥榓theists鈥� do indeed use evolution to dismiss the existence of God just as some 鈥楥hristians鈥� use creationism to dismiss the evidence for evolution.

Your comment takes me back to my post #14 where I stated 鈥渢hat the discussions are taking place between the 'fundamentalist atheists' and the 'fundamentalist religiosists'. Both speak from a perspective of 'certainty'.鈥� It appears that you are positioning yourself in the 鈥榝undamentalist religiosist鈥� camp with a touch of panic accompanying your certainity.

PB: You wrote: 鈥渨hat else is going to give you security when we lie on our deathbeds and the life is slipping away鈥�

Surely, PB, the demise of evolutionary science is not what will give you the security that you seek? Are you really living in such a state of intense fear about evolution that it has become a 鈥榙eathbed鈥� issue for you?

You wrote: 鈥淢ichael, unless you want to discuss evidence there's nothing more useful I can discuss.鈥�

PB: On this point we have finally reached agreement!

Blessings,
Michael

Michael

If you read again you will see I have repeatedly said I cannot be certain of creation science because I am not a scientist. I am certain of the bible and God.
I also said clearly Christians do not need to believe in creationism? Why didnt you read all this? please dont project your stereotypes onto me, thats prejudice.

So I'm not certain about creationism but I am sceptical about evolution. geddit?

The key phrases in your entry are that this discovery is certain to "fuel debate about our evolutionary history" and also add to the "contentious feud" over the nature of Lucy.

If your article is worth treating at all credibly then you must accept its analysis that there is a huge, credible debate going on about these issues. That is basically the only real point I want to make, and you have made it for me!!!

However, a few pieces I picked up on google raise some interesting qiestions over Lucy.

Basically, it would appear that there was not enough of Lucy's skull left to say what sort of animal she was, though there was enough of her hands left to show she had characteristics of an ape that walks on its knuckles.

A few www snippets;-

...Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson is probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, says Lucy鈥檚 skull is so incomplete that most of it is 鈥榠magination made of plaster of paris鈥�.1 Leakey even said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.

Lucy has the morphology of a knuckle-walker,4 which is a distinctly quadrupedal specialization characteristic of some living apes and is quite different than walking upright. Richmond and Strait identify four skeletal features of the distal radius of the living knuckle-walking apes, chimpanzees and gorillas. They also identify similar morphological features on two early 鈥榟ominids鈥�, including Lucy:

鈥楢 UPGMA clustering diagram 鈥� illustrates the similarity between the radii of A. anamensis and A. afarensis and those of the knuckle-walking African apes, indicating that these hominids retain the derived wrist morphology of knuckle-walkers.鈥�5

So Michael, i repeat I am not certain of anything in this debate, except that there is a debate. ok?

What about you, can you come clean on any ideological interests you have in the outcome of debate? ie Are you an athiest/agnostic/person of faith?

sincerely

PB

Also Michael

You claim to be througoughly up to date on the science, may I ask what are your scientific credential?

What I have seen so far is that you have quoted a science article from a newspaper.

sincerely
PB

PB- I was intrigued as to how you would respond to Michael's evidence, which you requested, on the fossil record. You are so fond so often of making us all aware of how openminded you are and what a free thinker you are yet, like you did when I tried to make you aware of other interpretations of the Sodom texts, you stick to your guns regardless of the quality of the argument presented to you. You just keep firing until someone presents something that is obviously devastating to your point of view, at which point you will say that you are open to every idea and you're just trying to learn etc.etc..

My observation is that you are a fundamentalist evangelical Christian, bound to traditional evangelical interpretations of the bible and therefore incapable of rational free thought; you admit this yourself when you say that you are "certain" of the bible - what this means is that you're certain that the interpretative apparatus that's been taught to you is correct, and that, for example, MY interpretations of the bible are incorrect. That is not free thought, PB.

I knew you woudn't accept Michael's evidence, despite the fact that it is presented by some of the best scientists in the field. You chose to focus your response on Lucy, which is contentious, because it's more suitable to your position, rather than focus on the actual news story which was a NEW find just two months ago. In short, PB, you asked for evidence and then dismissed it out of hand when it came because you are prejudiced against it by your religious belief.

But then, I never expected anything more.

PB asks in 2 separate posts:

鈥淲hat about you, can you come clean on any ideological interests you have in the outcome of debate? ie Are you an athiest/agnostic/person of faith? You claim to be thoroughly up to date on the science, may I ask what are your scientific credentials?鈥�

I鈥檓 not sure what I have been unclean about or what claims have disturbed you. However, to help get you over these personal issues the answers you require are as follows:

B.Sc. Chemistry with First Class Honors, 1964 Queen鈥檚 University Belfast

Ph.D. Electrochemistry 1967 Queen鈥檚 University Belfast

Elder Presbyterian Church USA 1985 鈥� Present

Hope this helps with my claims and my cleanliness.

Michael

John

Yet another sneering personal attack. try again when your manners improve.

PB

Hi Michael

Have you no comment at all on post 31?

I repeat in summary, your article acknowledges these issues are by no means settled in public debate.

I have mentioned Lucy as a secondary factor because your article mentions her three times and holds her up as a fine example of this species.
I think that is fair, though obviously I am not attempting a comprehensive analysis of the latest find here. Again, I'm just highlighting there is a credible debate going on here.

sincerely

PB

PS Good to see you have a solid science background. You beat me hands down there, even if your expertise is not in the area of evolution, if I am not mistaken.

PPS Are you an agnostic/atheist/person of faith? I was not asking if you held a religious title. Where will you spend eternity? What do you think of Christ?

Here is a thought...

If a liberal wishes to remake a traditional christian church into one with liberal values, then for what purpose is that church?

Of course this is the real agenda of liberals... they do not really believe Christians have made a mistake in interpreting the bible on homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, evolution etc. They simply wish to create a liberal church, that is what always links all those type of issues, coincidentally.

A liberal who achieves this has remade his God into his own image, he is worshipping his own ideas...he is worshipping...himself! [Christians meditate on the bible for their values, liberals don't]

Christ says the church is to provide salt and light to the world, but if it holds exactly the same values as the world (or as Christ says, has lost its saltiness) then of what value is it? Christ says it is good for nothgin but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.

If this happens it is exactly the same as the world so why would a liberal take anything to do with it? he has nothing to learn or gain from it.

This is a bit like the feminists who turned so many men into metrosexuals but then decided they preferred the masculine men after all.

Joel Edwards says that the two US churches which adopted homosexuality showed a marked decline in membership shortly afterwards.

Why would anyone be attracted to a church which is not sure what it believes? Across the UK these type of churches are shrivelling up and dying.

Hope none of you tolerant liberals are offended... freedom of religion, speech, conscience, expression, thought and all that...human rights dont you know! ;-)

PB

PB:

1) In answer to your question 鈥淎re you an athiest/agnostic/person of faith?鈥� I replied that I am an Elder in the Presbyterian Church USA.

You now tell me that you were 鈥渘ot asking if I held a religious title鈥� following up with the question 鈥淲hat do you think of Christ?鈥�

PB, this is becoming somewhat Sisyphean. May I again direct you to post 21 where I stated:

鈥淲ith apologies to Bart Ehrman (author of The New Testament 鈥� A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings) the word 鈥淐hrist鈥� is a title and not a surname i.e. Jesus is known as 鈥楯esus the Christ鈥� or Christ Jesus. (The same is true, for example, of Leonardo da Vinci 鈥� his surname is not 鈥榙a Vinci鈥� which means simply from 鈥榁inci鈥�. His full birth name was "Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci", meaning "Leonardo, son of (Mes)ser Piero from Vinci.") Readers living in the Greco-Roman world would not recognize 鈥淐hrist鈥� as a name. For most of them it was not even a meaningful title. The word 鈥淐hrist鈥� comes from the verb 鈥渁noint鈥�. Christ was a title in Jewish circles and used as the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word 鈥淢essiah鈥�. So we also have the term 鈥楯esus the Messiah鈥� and we don鈥檛 refer to Jesus as 鈥楯esus Messiah鈥�.

Given this I think we should stick with the title of Elder for me and not presume that the title of Christ would be appropriate in any way.

2) You then inquired as to where I would spend eternity?

I would first define my terms as follows:

Eternal Time 鈥� The continuousness of time from the past to the future

Eternity 鈥� The moment of 鈥榥ow鈥� which is forever unchangeable.

Given the above, the answer is clearly that I will spend eternity for as long as I live in 鈥榯he moment of now鈥�.

But somehow I don鈥檛 think that was what you were asking. You maybe were trying to get into a discussion about an 鈥榓fterlife鈥� If so you will have to wait until William Crawley sets this up as a discussion item in his broadcasting diary before I explore the matter further.

3) On the continuing concern about Lucy, I think she is exhausted as am I. I now intend to let her rest and will not comment further.

4) Concerning your statement:

鈥淚f a liberal wishes to remake a traditional christian church into one with liberal values, then for what purpose is that church? Of course this is the real agenda of liberals... they do not really believe Christians have made a mistake in interpreting the bible on homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, evolution etc. They simply wish to create a liberal church, that is what always links all those type of issues, coincidentally. A liberal who achieves this has remade his God into his own image, he is worshipping his own ideas...he is worshipping...himself! [Christians meditate on the bible for their values, liberals don't]鈥�

I would be very interested to explore with you, and hopefully the other readers of his blog - where are you? - how you feel about the writings of Marcus Borg e.g. his book entitled 鈥淭he Heart of Christianity鈥�.

Quoting from a descripton of the book (which to prempt your question 鈥� I have read)

鈥淏org鈥檚 book discusses the essence of Christianity and emphasizes the transformational aspect of Christianity. He shows how much more deep and wonderful the Christian tradition is than merely "believing" certain doctrines or defending the literalness of certain events in order to "prove" the strength of our faith. Borg argues that we diminish our faith stories by making them merely literal. He pushes for the "more-than-literal" meanings in the Christian scripture. The new paradigm, Borg writes, is about loving God and loving what God loves, rather than rigidly adhering to a specific set of literal beliefs. In exploring this new way of "being Christian," Borg offers a middle ground for conservative and liberal Christians.鈥�

Some thoughts please.

Regards,
Michael

I'm delighted to hear you bring up Borg, Michael. His work is simply brilliant in identifying the problems of and advocating solutions for an evangelical church that is obsessed with conformity and indoctrination. But I reckon PB will simply either disregard your remarks as "sneering personal attacks" or regard them as the rantings of a liberal nutcase: he likes to think of himself as openminded but he is in fact the opposite.

I fear that PB's principal problem is not that he disagrees with liberals; it's that he considers theological conservatism to be the standard by which all other theology should be measured. "If a liberal wishes to remake a traditional christian church..." is the arrogance of a conservative who is prejudiced against any other way of interpreting faith or the bible. (He wrongly assumes that because the only variety of faith he has experienced is conservative in nature, that the only VALID variety of faith is some degree of conservatism, and that every other interpretation of Christianity should somehow have to prove itself against his. Of course, that is absurd.)

There is only one way to interpret the Bible, it is by the Bible.

John Wright wrote that he is delighted the subject of Borg was brought up. His work is simply brilliant in identifying the problems of and advocating solutions for an evangelical church that is obsessed with conformity and indoctrination.

How is Borg鈥檚 approach helpful to modern Christianity and particularly the church in NI?

I hardly think that the non belief, all inclusive theology of Marcus Borg is in anyway helpful for any church, it just throws more mud into muddy water and puts more scales upon the eyes of the blind.

Neill- In an average evangelical church in Northern Ireland, a minister will get up at the front of the church and teach the members of his congregation what to believe. It is expected that the members of the congregation will then go and adhere to this belief in their lives. We call such collections of belief 'denominations', - denominations have statements of faith and creeds which purport to set out what its members believe. Being a Christian, therefore, is primarily about belief in certain things.

I find such ideas to be arrogant and immature.

And they don't approach reality. The reality is that there are thousands of various belief systems, even within denominations. In the postmodern world, people are thinking for themselves; church still expects to be allowed to think for them. Borg, in his numerous volumes, calls for a different approach to Christianity which simply acknowledges that real Christianity does not involve adherence to the teachings of Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Roman Catholic, Baptist, or other denominations; it involves a deeper awareness of spirituality which is not doctrinal in nature.

I hope this helps to answer your question.

Mud in the water Billy?
Scales on the eyes Billy?

What on earth are you talking about? This kind of posting reads like the script from a Monty Python movie, and makes a mockery of any reasoned argument you might have. Why not throw in a couple of "verily's" or even a "forsooth" or two. Is this how you are taught to speak on a Sunday morning, or have you just evolved this way?

I can't understand why people feel the necssity to embellish their language with this kind of melodramtic codswallop....

Anyway - what has all this nonsense got to do with the debate on the farsical notion of Scientific Creationism I thought I'd be reading when I clicked through to here?

John Wright wrote:

鈥淏org, in his numerous volumes, calls for a different approach to Christianity which simply acknowledges that real Christianity does not involve adherence to the teachings of Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Roman Catholic, Baptist, or other denominations; it involves a deeper awareness of spirituality which is not doctrinal in nature.鈥�

Up until about the fourth century AD there was not one form of Christianity; there were Ebionites, Marcionites, Gnostics, etc and scholars tend to talk today about early 鈥楥hristianities鈥� rather than early 鈥楥hristianity鈥�.

The Ebionites, a Christianity that incidentally was led by James, the brother of Jesus, and established in Jerusalem, insisted on remaining Jewish and regarded Jesus as a man and not a God. They rejected the teachings of Paul.

The Marcionites were a Christianity that refused to be Jewish and insisted that there were two Gods 鈥� the God of the OT and the God of the NT. To them Jesus was not a man he was completely a God who only appeared to he human. They prefered the writings of Paul.

The Gnostics on the other hand believed that all things were either matter (evil) or spirit (good) and that sparks of the divine had been trapped in this world and could only escape by knowledge of the divine brought to earth in the person of Jesus.

Eventually, by the fourth century one form of Christianity, that became what one might call 鈥榦rthodox鈥�, became dominant because it was the form prevelant in the seat of the Roman Empire at the time. Jesus was now man and God and the form of Christianity established by Jesus鈥檚 brother James was deemed 鈥榟eretical鈥�.

Modern day 鈥楥hristianity鈥� no longer exists 鈥� we have modern 鈥楥hristianities鈥� with an increasing tendency to focus on doctrinal differences which drive them farther apart into their own narrow sectarian boxes of separation and exclusion from which the 鈥榝aithful鈥� are fleeing in droves.

Why is Borg鈥檚 approach not something that might offer unification rather than division?

I think I know John Wright鈥檚 answer to this question but I would be interested in hearing members of the other 鈥楥hristianities鈥� which are presently flourishing in Ulster come forth with some reasoned statements other than one-line off-the-cuff opining.

Michael

I am somewhat confused by your response in post 38.

You say you think we have tired poor old Lucy out, but you never entered into a discussion about her at all.

This appears to be startling white flag for someone who was so earnestly saying evolution was correct.

I reiterate my main point in this discussion;- there has never been found a missing link that is not either fully ape or fully man.

Michael, I know these are personal issues and I have no right to pry, only your permission to discuss, but you have also completely sidestepped the issue of what you think of Christ and where you will spend eternity. That is wholly your right and I dont criticise you for it, but as we are all susceptible to ideologies, it is useful for us to own up to our possible influences, I would argue.

Again we see a diffence between us, King Solomon said that of making books there is no end. Paul said there are those that are every learning yet never coming to an understanding of the truth.

So who is Bart Ehrman??? Now I dont want to disrespect him, I actually think what he says, at first glance, appears to be spot on. But I also think what he says is self-evident to any ardent bible student;

Jesus summed up the whole bible as loving God with all your heart and your neighbour as yourself.

I hold the bible as the book of books but it would appear you don't. That is not meant as a criticism.

But basically I agree with you 100% that the heart of Christianity is not hollow debate for its own sake. Absolutely.

But this blog has been and will be largely intellectual challenge and counterchallenge. The best way I can live up to Ehrman's standard is the manner in which I do that.

I try to do it in a gracious yet direct manner; I'm not saying I never overstep the mark and I regularly apologise when I make a mistake.

I glad to discuss these issues with you and hope I have not breeched my own standards in your eyes.

sincerely
PB

John

I find it hard to take you seriously when you have not made the effort to enter into the debate with me on evolution yet wait on the sideline to totally condemn me and my views in what I feel is a pretty judgemental and personal manner.

I just dont think that is good manners or in the spirit of this blog.

I never said I was looking for an excuse to dump my faith. I have said I am interested to learn on all subjects. The learning I challenge myself with is, can my faith stand up intellectually to the doubtless very sharp and educated people who drop in here.

Now to be honest, I really dont feel like responding to you again unless you can offer me just a little respect on that basis.

I hope I have never treated you in the manner I am now criticising and would ask you how you would feel in my shoes?

I mean John, if you just dont like what I am saying by all means challenge the idea, but if you can only launch personal attacks at me, we are wasting each others time.

sincerely

PB

ref Evangelicism fyi,

Michael, John

I would not call myself an evangelical, although it is simply derived from the greek, good news or gospel.

However it is now used like fundamentalism as a stereotype and an often derogatory one at that.

Look, any student of church history can tell you quite easily what has been the main beliefs of the church through history. I would simply call myself a Christian, if you like, in the tradition of the entirety of the historical bible believing church.

I know full well that is not watertight, But as Michael pointed out, Christianity is first about Loving God [and your neighbours] not about watertight doctrines.

It almost seems like we have diverted into an attack on my doctrine and faith because I have beaten all comers so far on the missing link debate.

And there is a world of difference between pointing out obvious differences of opinion on doctrines [many of which are actually biblically complmentary] and implying that 21st century liberal doctrines can stand on an equal footing with these viewpoints.

It is disengenous to pretend that such a viewpoint is some sort of marginal, intellectually stunted modern phenomenon. It might appear so from within the limited confines of this blog, but you know you are really chancing your arm when you pretend that is the case.

For example, the biblical view on homosexuality has stood for 6000 years, as is attested by gay columnist/broadcaster Matthew Parris, who defends it. Therefore when you by your comments try to imply that it is only a few intellectually challenged crackpot fundamentalists who hold it you are saying more about yourself than anyone else.

Ref indoctrination, I dont see myself fitting into that, I am very dubious about smug statements of faith and while I believe and trust in Christ and the bible I am sceptical about many of the pre-packed microwave type doctrines that float about; that is no reason to pour absolute contempt on less advanced or intellectually gifted, yet sincere Christians. (of course I defend your freedom to do so nonetheless!)

And by this I mean where there is sound scriptural evidence to show that a number of related biblical facts need to be held in delicate balance. eg justification by faith appears to have been murdered by many of us who have little interest in traditional Christian discipleship, and in saying that I do not ignore the shortcomings in my own life.

John, after some of the discussions we have had, the last thing you can seriously accuse me of is not reading the bible for myself as opposed to relying on some teacher or other.

As I recall, you could not enter into a serious discussion with me on the new testament teaching on homosexuality and referred me to another website which was shot through with errors, which I indisputably demonstrated to you.

You gave me short shrift when I came back to you and pointed this out.

So please, just think twice when you are criticising others for not knowing their bibles or faith as well as you think they should.

Again, I still defend your freedom to do so and fully respect you and your right to hold your views, nonetheless.

sincerely

PB

...ref indoctrination John

need I also remind you how recently you betrayed a total ignorance of the old testament, old covenant and the law and how they relate to the new testament, new covenant and grace?

There is a world of difference between saying too many people allow their ministers to do all their thinking for them and saying that many commonly accepted "conservative" Christian doctrines have many more delicately balanced facets -and yes outright mysteries- than are generally taught...

Please understand me John, none of this is meant to denigrate you personally, I am challenging your assertions about Christianity and assertions about my own views.

with respect
PB

...ref indoctrination John

need I also remind you how recently you betrayed a total ignorance of the old testament, old covenant and the law and how they relate to the new testament, new covenant and grace?

There is a world of difference between saying too many people allow their ministers to do all their thinking for them and saying that many commonly accepted "conservative" Christian doctrines have many more delicately balanced facets -and yes outright mysteries- than are generally taught...

It is something else again to take your 21st century liberalism and twist the scriptures (which you do nto believe are dinvinely inspired) and try to make them justify your views.

Please understand me John, none of this is meant to denigrate you personally, I am challenging your assertions about Christianity and your assertions about me my own views.

with respect
PB

PB- I think the problem is that you regard what I'm saying as personal in any way. I apologise if you are offended by my previous remarks, but I've seen enough and heard enough of what you believe and the approach you take to discussion to offer the above analysis of it. I would hope in your shoes that I would pause a moment and try to understand why it is that I believe what I believe. My remarks are intended as a criticism. They are a criticism of the approach you take to matters of faith and practice, and I'm not at all sure that the reasons you believe these things are good reasons.

That said, if I can allow myself to be honest for a second, perhaps I can also see myself ten years ago in your approach - that's why I asked your age. Ten years ago I would have believed similar things to you, yet I see the sheer absurdity of many of my premises at the time. We all journey through changes in ideology, and if I can offer you a compliment it is that you are at least thinking about it, unlike most of the Christians around you, I'm sure.

My criticism of what you believe and the premises that support it is valid, PB. Of course that's just my opinion and you are entirely free to do whatever you like with it. Something tells me you didn't actually need me to give you that sanction, though. :-)

Most ministers that are in the pulpit today are an embarrassment to themselves and the church that they are the teaching elder of because they believe fiction or science fiction rather than believing in the inspired word of God. Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

It鈥檚 a sad day for the Christian church and the P.C.I. when this years leader of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland blames God for evolution, theistic evolution and the Scriptures cannot be harmonized, is it any wonder that the churches are losing its members. Without the Genesis account Christians have no basis for their faith and to believe Genesis as poetry or an allegory ones faith is in crisis, and for that matter bankrupt and at worst a farce, the bible becomes irrelevant and has nothing to say to fallen man, therefore there is no need for redemption meaning that churches should close shop, they have nothing to say to fallen man. Psa 100:3 Know that the LORD, he is God! It is He, who made us,

Gullible men have fallen into the same trap as Eve fell into they have eaten the forbidden fruit and swallowed the serpents poison having replaced a Sovereign God with sovereign man, Gen 3:5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

To believe in evolutionary theory is to believe in the F.A.R.C.E.

F. The Fossil record is an embarrassment to the evolutionist. There is no transition from one species to another, Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge both militant anticreationists concluded that Archaeopteryx could not be viewed as a transitional form or a missing link. Then the jumping gene quantum leap theory which is pure speculation was invented because there is no compelling evidence for evolution in the fossil record.

A. Ape men fiction. Look what happened while scientists were attempting to make a monkey out of a pig tooth identical to that of Nebraska man, the pig tooth made a monkey out of the scientists. More myths. Java man represents more fiction along with the fraud of Piltdown man, clay in the hands of the potter, doctored fossils.

R. Recapitulation, the human embryo is exactly that human, not a fish, DNA reproduces its own kind, established scientific fact that life begins with conception. Job 31:15 Did not he who made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb?

C. Chance doesn鈥檛 have a chance; it is absurd in the highest degree to rely on chance, 鈥榩erhaps鈥�, 鈥榠t is probable鈥�, 鈥榗ould be鈥�, 鈥榤ight have been鈥�, Job 31:15 Did not he who made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb? We simply are not created by chance Mat 10:30 But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Sir Ernst Chain, co-holder of a 1945 Nobel Prize for his work in the development and use of penicillin said that the development and survival of the fittest by chance mutations were 鈥渁 hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts鈥�.

E. Empirical science,
鈥渆volutionists have ignored, the law of cause and effect, it stands unassailed. Its central message remains intact: every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause. Life in our magnificent Universe is here; intelligence is here; morality is here; love is here. What is their ultimate cause? Since the effect never can precede, or be greater than the cause, it stands to reason that the Cause of life must be a living Intelligence which Itself is both moral and loving. When the Bible records, 鈥淚n the beginning, God...,鈥� it makes known to us just such a First Cause鈥�.
The Bible and the Laws of Science: The Law of Cause and Effect by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

Cause and effect cannot be divorced from each other.

The Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically correct and is consistent with:

Paleontology
Astronomy
Meteorology
Biology
Anthropology
Hydrology
Geology
Physics

and lastly for tonight, before anyone pulls me up on my 'who is Ehrman' comment, please reflect.

The authority I quote before him is Christ and I make no apology for that.

There is plenty of value in listending to gifted teachers, I am just saying Christ made this simple point centuries before Ehrman; if Ehrman is worth his salt, then Christ is his teacher and authority.

Basically Michael I am saying that Christ is a greater authority on the point you made, and the original one.

It is not to dismiss Ehrman in the slightest.

PB

PB asks:

鈥淢ichael, I know these are personal issues and I have no right to pry, only your permission to discuss, but you have also completely sidestepped the issue of what you think of Christ and where you will spend eternity.鈥�

PB, you are correct that I fully intend to side step this question.

The reason derives from the comments that I made in earlier posts. I am disturbed by the proliferation of various Christianities, the polarization of beliefs that has led to violence, the declining role that philosophical matters plays in the thinking of our youth, etc. So for me to identify where I personally stand causes people to place me in a particular 鈥榖ox鈥� and they then continue the discussion with me in terms of what they think about my 鈥榖ox鈥�.

Once one states that one belongs in a particular box then the discussion immediately becomes separationist and exclusionary. For example, if you look at how the Free Presbyterians define themselves on their website it is Fundamentalist in Doctrine, Protestant in Conviction, and Separist in Practice. So where does that leave me in their worldview if I declare that I might not be fundamentalist in doctrine, protestant in conviction or separist in practice?

I listened to the discussion Crawley had on Sunday Sequence with the four religious leaders. How interesting it was to hear them respond to his question as to whether each would regard the other as Christian in every aspect. (I鈥檓 paraphrasing the question here from memory). They all retreated to their individual boxes while claiming that there were similarities between the various boxes!

The United Kingdom and much of Europe is basically now a secular society (with a muslim minority that is partly fundamentalist). The youth in Britain who are culturally 鈥楥hristian鈥� appear to be rejecting most modes Christianity as being based on 鈥榥onsense鈥� or 鈥榮tuff that is unbelievable鈥�. Yet there is no other message to which they can gravitate in the vacuum except what is offered through the television, movie screen, internet, or cell phone. My questions relating to Marcus Borg are an attempt to see if anyone in this forum shares my view that Borg offers one possible way to rescue the various Christianites from their ongoing decline.

PB, you are obviously an honourable and thoughtful person and I hope you can now see that Lucy is really a minor side issue for me and not what I think is the main problem that Christianity faces. Also having told you earlier that I am an elder in the Presbyterian Church USA and that I find Borg鈥檚 analysis and approach acceptable to me personally, you should be able to figure out, to a degree that may satisfy your curiosity, what I think about Jesus and an afterlife.

Now I am going to wait and see if any discussion points come forward on the question of Borg before commenting any further.

Fascinating Billy, that you choose science as your battleground.

You talk about fossil records - how old are these fossils in your opinion and how does this age reconcile with the Bibles consistency with Paleontology? What age is the Earth from a Biblical standpoint?

Ape men fiction? The only fiction here in my opinion is that we created shortly after evolving from ape men, the weak minded searching for a meaning and creating the supernatural.

Recapitulation? What does this nonsense mean? The unique human DNA you cherish is virtually identical to several other species - surely an omnipotent creator would have made all his wondrous species a little more unique?

Chance? Again a digression into drivel and Science from the first half of the last century - come on...

Empirical science - you descend into preaching here.
Does digging some dusty scrolls out of a cave and swallowing wholesale the fairy tales they contain really constitute empiricism in your world?

Have your Faith - I'd fight for your right to it. Just don't call it science please.

Michael

I am humbled by your respect and I share your concerns about society though perhaps not to the extent I should.

Upon reading your quote on Borg I have to ask myself why it is so important to join liberals and fundamentalists together? Is this a priority for God?

I accept a hardline fundamentalism is unlikely to get everything from scripture and I dont presume there wont be some "liberal" disciples well ahead of me in heaven, should I make it.
(DID YOU READ THAT BIT JOHN WRIGHT!)
;-)

Having said that, I think the bible gives pretty clear indications when it is meant literally or otherwise.

My view is that there is nothing new under the sun. If you like what has happened before then use the same methods to get there.
ie I believe that God's dealings with Israel and the church will answer all our questions in this realm. Following that, the acts of notable men of God in secular history echo the same lessons, eg John Wesley, Charles Finney etc.

Now I still say you are very naughty for diverting into this all when we were only getting started on Lucy in a blog which is discussing creationism.

Right now, I guess the level of my holiness, obedience and love will dicate the extent of my personal influence on these issues in society.
I dont presume I can change a nation, but on the other hand, I may well rue my lack of faith looking back in hindsight from eternity.

After that, you might be interested to look up "Prophecy Today" which is a group of diverse Christians wrestling with similar concerns.

sincerely
PB

...also Michael

The reason I asked what you believed was because I believe our core beliefs preset us on particular courses for particular ways of thinking.

ie no certainty about Christ, no certainty about anything, I would say.

Yes, it is about boxing people I suppose but can also be that our advsersaries can help us understand ourselves better than our friends, if we are willing to engage.

PB

JW

...when I think about what you are saying, it almost appears that while you believe in God you feel you cannot be certain about anything in faith and therefore challenge anyone who feels they have certainty.

I can appreciate this may have been caused by a reaction to something, but could it have been an overreaction?

One doctrine I think it pretty rock solid is Christ; born of a virgin, wholly God and wholly man, sinless and love incarnate, crucified for our sins, died and rose again, rose to the right hand of the father from whence he will return to judge the world in truth and righteousness.

The other would be his two commands, love God with all your heart and your neighbour as yourself.

Surely you cant have any problems with those doctrines JW?

Best
PB

Gee Dubya

Verily verily I saith unto ye,

Whithersoever thou goest thou canst not overcometh the teachings against evolution laidst out in postings 9,30,31.

Knowest thou any truly veritable missing links?

PB

sorry Gee Dubyah

verily verily, I shouldst have written postings 29,30,31

Your servant
PB

also Gee Dubyah

If you are looking for a little hardcore science to stretch you ref all those old dusty fairytale scrolls for weak minded fools...

Google: Dr Ivan Panin, bible codes.

Do let us know how you get on.

PB

In post 58 I read 鈥淐hrist, born of a virgin, wholly God and wholly man, sinless and love incarnate, crucified for our sins, died and rose again, rose to the right hand of the father from whence he will return to judge the world in truth and righteousness. The other would be his two commands, love God with all your heart and your neighbour as yourself. Surely you can鈥檛 have any problems with those doctrines?鈥�

He is God made flesh, the savior and "Son of God."

His father is God and his mother is a mortal virgin.

He is born in a cave or humble cowshed on December 25 before three shepherds.

He offers his followers the chance to be born again through the rites of baptism.

He miraculously turns water into wine at a marriage ceremony.

He rides triumphantly into town on a donkey while people wave palm leaves to honor him.

He dies at Eastertime as a sacrifice for the sins of the world.

After his death he descends to hell, then on the third day he rises from the dead and ascends to heaven in glory.

His followers await his return as the judge during the Last Days.

His death and resurrection are celebrated by a ritual meal of bread and wine, which symbolize his body and blood.

I speak of Osiris 鈥� Dionysus a group of deities worshipped around the Mediterranean in the centuries prior to the birth of Jesus.

From The Jesus Mysteries - a 1999 book by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy.

Hi PB,

Amusing use of the prose, forsooth (alomost a rhyme!!) - I salute you Sir!

Re Post 29 - I think you are right, there remains to be found a definitive missing link (hence the missing). I won't pretend to have ALL the facts at my disposal - but I suspect that most of us are in this boat if we are honest. Nonetheless, to me the Evoloutionary principals are sufficiently compelling. I dont understand why we can disregard Evoloution because the puzzle is incomplete, yet it is OK to adhere to one of the Creationist schools of thought despite even less empirical evidence. Let's treat both schools of thought evenly here. If we are being totally objective - Evoloution bends the rules of our observable world much less than the existence of a Deity.

PB -

I dont think you will be ever be convinced by evoloution.

You seem to think that finding an organism that is nearly Man nor Ape is the requirement - but the tenet of Evoloution is that these are shades of the same thing, on the same spectrum as it were - and so any missing link is very likely to a very large part of either - and more of one than the other depending on which end of the spectrum they are nearer to.
What of the snakes vestigial legs? The whale's finger bones?
Designers follies or evoloution in action - whatcha reckon?

Do you not accept genetics? Do you not accept that genes regularly mutate - and in a small percentage of instances this may result in a competitive advantage for the species concerned? If you do then evoloution is de facto...

Correction

that should be an organism that is NEITHER man nor ape...

In summary:

My favourite comment under this post was Billy's comment 52 where he spells out FARCE with five anti-evolution points. LOL! That was the cr茅me.

This is quite a debate. Would any of you commenters like to join our live studio discussion of creationism on Sunday 10 December? The venue is Broadcasting House, Belfast (which unforttunately may exclude bloggers in Arizona!). I'd like to include some of these interesting perpectives in the programme. Send an email to sunday.sequence@bbc.co.uk if you are free that day and able to join us.

I don鈥檛 adhere to Bishop Ussher鈥檚 chronology, but I base my chronological view of Creation based upon the dates of Bible Kings and by laying them along side the dates of the rulers of Assyria and Babylon.

The Assyrians based their history data upon astronomy and by using the Assyrian 鈥榚ponym鈥� Lists which gives us the dates of their kings and by using present knowledge it allows us to plot Absolute Dates accurately which therefore can be used to pinpoint the dates of Old Testament chronology.

Stone Age 10,000 - 4,000 B.C. Genesis chapters 1-11

Chalcolitic Period 4,000 - 3,200 B.C. Genesis chapters 1-11

Bronze Age 3,200 鈥� 1,200 B.C. Abraham born (2166 B.C.)
Jacob enters Egypt (1876 B.C.)
The Exodus (1446 B.C.)

Iron Age 1,200 鈥� 330 B.C. David becomes King (1004 B.C.)
Israel鈥檚 Fall (586 B.C.)
The Jews Return (539 B.C.)

The Hellenistic Period 330 鈥� 63 B.C

The Roman Period 63 B.C. 鈥� A.D. 330 Christ crucified (A.D. 30)
Meaning that the year we live in is the year 12,006
Ussher鈥檚 chronology = 6,010

Billy,

are you seriously saying the beginning of the World was 10,000 years ago?

Do the rest of you guys buy this?

I'm horrified.

Tell me you are joking please?

RE POST 61

PB - this is utter hogwash - there are codes in the King James Version showing passages of the Bible contain references to Roswell and UFO's - does that mean the relevant book came from a flying saucer? Was Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John really a silicon based lifeform from the planet Qwxxxrlax?

I doubt it very much. Similar codes can be found/wrung out of other long texts - famously War and Peace, and the Torah. So why one book code and not another, unacceptable outcome? Lets not become (any more) disingenuous.

Billy,

sorry, make that 12,000 years old (it's been a long day..)still a bit short arent we...

This is just a blink - a moment, an instant compared to the earths true age. You must be joking...

Some fascinating arguments being deployed in this debate. I would be intrested in including some of these perspectives in our up-coming Creation Wars special on 成人快手 Radio Ulster. If you are able to join us in Broadcasting House, Belfast, on Sunday 10 December, from 0815 to 1000, you would be most welcome. If interested, email sunday.sequence@bbc.co.uk. You'll even get to ask Richard Dawkins a question -- there's inticement for you. :-)

William- The special sounds like a lot of fun, I wish I could be there. That said, I'll be sure to catch the program on Sunday and look forward to a few choice Dawkins soundbites.

William,

I'd love to join you on Sunday - but I'm part of the Province's diaspora and am writing from London.
I would dearly love to hear further defence of the 12, 000 year old earth from Billy et al.
I'd like to know how old the myriad of dinosaur fossils are - because if I shared the earth with a T Rex it's likely it would have made a lasting impression on my psyche as it slaughtered my relatives. So much so perhaps, that when it came to cave paintings, I'd be likely to call that creature to mind rather than daubing herds of benign antelopes.
I'd like to know when the ice age occurred in Billys estimation - surely longer ago than last Wednesday (although it was nippy...)
Did the Grand Canyon erode in a month or two, the English Channel and Irish Sea open in an afternoon as the land masses split apart at the speed of sound?
How old is the coal that Billy chucks on his fire? The diamond on his wifes engagement ring?
I could go on, but I'm sure I've made my point...

Gee Dubyah / Neill

ref post 63 - now we ARE getting somewhere!

I am in total agreement with you - there has yet to be a missing link found and neither you nor I are fully qualified to debate the entire subject of evolution.

Ref Ivan Panin's bible codes, I think you have made a mistake. I think you have read ABOUT Panin rather than what Panin actually said. i seriously doubted Panin ever mentioned Roswell, prove me wrong.

This mathmetician found a mathemtical pattern in every verse of the bible which equalled 7, the biblically perfect number, using the original texts. This is hard maths boys, not esoteric philsophy, check it out.

Another two tests for you evolutionists out there;-

1) Why does everybody who dies immediately lose several grams in weight? nb give a serious answer with some evidence or none at all please. could it be a soul?

2) How is it that you can tell when someone is watching you even when you cant see them? Any answers?

Neil - ref Osiris - I am not really sure at all about the integrity of Freke and Gandy, but I will tell you this.

fyi The dying and reborn god you speak of acutally started with Nimrod on whom Osiris was based. Two excellent Christian texts on this are Babylon Mystery Religion by Woodrow???? and The Two Babylons by Rev Alexander Heslop. This is actually the origin of Masonic religion and the unbiblical worship of Mary.

Main prophecies of Christ were apparent even in Genesis and scripture does go on quite a bit about counterfeit Christs, which obviously based themselves on these prophecies.

In Revelation you have two churches in the last days, the Whore of Babylon which worships this Babylon Mystery Religion and the Bride of Christ which worships christ. The whore is a very good counterfeit, but hey, all good counterfeits are.

You think Freke and Gandy never heard any of this?

PB

William, I'd love to be there, but personal circumstances are proving difficult. I'll be listening intently though.

SG

Gee Dubyah / Neill

ref post 63 - now we ARE getting somewhere!

I am in total agreement with you - there has yet to be a missing link found and neither you nor I are fully qualified to debate the entire subject of evolution.

Ref Ivan Panin's bible codes, I think you have made a mistake. I think you have read ABOUT Panin rather than what Panin actually said. i seriously doubted Panin ever mentioned Roswell, prove me wrong.

This mathmetician found a mathemtical pattern in every verse of the bible which equalled 7, the biblically perfect number, using the original texts. This is hard maths boys, not esoteric philsophy, check it out.

Another two tests for you evolutionists out there;-

1) Why does everybody who dies immediately lose several grams in weight? nb give a serious answer with some evidence or none at all please. could it be a soul?

2) How is it that you can tell when someone is watching you even when you cant see them? Any answers?

Neil - ref Osiris - I am not really sure at all about the integrity of Freke and Gandy, but I will tell you this.

fyi The dying and reborn god you speak of acutally started with Nimrod on whom Osiris was based. Two excellent Christian texts on this are Babylon Mystery Religion by Woodrow???? and The Two Babylons by Rev Alexander Heslop. This is actually the origin of Masonic religion and the unbiblical worship of Mary.

Main prophecies of Christ were apparent even in Genesis and scripture does go on quite a bit about counterfeit Christs, which obviously based themselves on these prophecies.

In Revelation you have two churches in the last days, the Whore of Babylon which worships this Babylon Mystery Religion and the Bride of Christ which worships christ. The whore is a very good counterfeit, but hey, all good counterfeits are.

You think Freke and Gandy never heard any of this?

PB

PB- You are saying that you don't just believe in talking snakes, but also you believe in a soul that has the pyhsical property of weight and you believe in ESP as a measure of theistic belief?

Let me first ask you a question about those bible verses. Who was it that gave the bible its chapters and verses? Was it God? Or was it men who, hundreds of years later, decided that it would be handy to have the verses as reference points? If so, where does that leave your theory?

Second, let's deal with this claim of yours that "...everybody who dies immediately lose[s] several grams in weight?" This is pure urban legend. A local doctor in Massachusetts, Dr. Duncan MacDougall, once tried to measure the weight of the human soul. He claimed to see some results, but in the end, in the words of urban legend debunking website snopes.com, "MacDougall's results were flawed because the methodology used to harvest them was suspect, the sample size far too small, and the ability to measure changes in weight imprecise. For this reason, credence should not be given to the idea his experiments proved something, let alone that they measured the weight of the soul as 21 grams. His postulations on this topic are a curiousity, but nothing more."

As for your third claim that you can tell when someone is watching you even when you aren't looking, I have to admit PB that I laughed loudly when I read it. It is telling that in a thread dealing with scientific refutations of religious belief you put forward these anecdotal ideas that have no basis in testable, verifiable science and more in common with the curious ramblings of parapsychologists and conspiracy theorists.

Tell me again, PB, where is it in the bible that you will be able to tell when someone is watching you without looking?

John

Do you still laugh our loud after I challenge you for the 10th time to come up with an acutal missing link between man and ape?

You are taking the position that creationism is not proveable in science. But I am still waiting for you to come up with a single credible missing link between man and ape!!!

I am saying science has not the answers to everything and should avoid giving the impression it does.

This does not prove creationism, I cant, but it is proving the limitations of orthodox science.

What you are saying about bible verses is 100% true, they are man-made. I have not studied Panin very closely, he may well be taking sentences as verses. But this science is well established and known.

On the weight of a soul, I have to say I fail to accept snopes.com as an authority on any science.

Now have you ever known when someone is watching you John? I have never read about this in the bible, but again I include it to demonstrate that science cant approach this.

A few more questions for your Lord Science;

1) What is life and when will science be able to create it?

2) What happens to the human personality and consciousness after death? Is it possible to save them and bring them back?

I think science is a great but limited human discipline that is subject to all the frailties, prejudices and bias of the scientist that is using it.

Science is a discplined human methodolgy for testing and gathering knowledge.

I cite these phenomenon to demonstrate to you why I believe in God as God and not in science as God.

One has all the answers and the other does not. If science had all the answers all the scientists would be redundant already.

Sincerely
PB

pb

re your mantra of the missing link - comment in post 64.

re number codes - no mistake - Panin didnt fing Roswell and UFO's in the KJV bible - some other guy did using a different number code. and similar stuff has been elicited from the Torah, war an Peace, and with a little application probably could from this blog. Put enough letters together....

Shame on you with this nonsense - we'll be talking about the da Vinci code next en route to magic bullets, a rat in a KFC and other urban myts - there was me thinking we were talking science...

Gee Dubyah

Ref post 70 and Ivan Panin

Panin died in 1942 and Roswell was in 1947. Tell me how Panin could have written about Roswell???

A very thorough refutation GD, did you have a prejduice about what the your conclusion should be?

I'm not a mathemtician but I understand nobody in Panin's lifetime challenged him.

And because of your sloppiness I cant take your comments seriously on war and peace.

Dont really have the time to become a Panin expert, if anyone is really interested and doesnt have their mind already made up, be my guest.

PB

PB- What you patently fail to understand is that I never once claimed that we WOULD be able to find a link between apes and men in the fossil record! If you can show me where I've claimed such, then you can prove me inconsistent.... until then, perhaps you're right and snakes DO talk and there are magical verse math in the bible and the soul IS material (perhaps it sits behind the cerebral cortex?!)..... You have shown your lack of credibility and the fact that you won't acknowledge anything I said to you in any of these posts, PERIOD, is indicative of the fact that you have gone on to prove my posts 33 and 39, despite your droolage of verbage to the contrary.

Gee Dubyah- How to reason with someone who is unreasonable?

By the way, PB- the burden of proof is not on ME to provide YOU with the evidence that the human soul does not weigh anything, it is on YOU to prove that it does! Consistent with your point number 1 in your post 77, you should be able to do that, or issue a retraction of your statement. Maybe you could point out where MacDougall's experiments have been validated by scientists (he was just a local physician) or where the results have been reproduced, or where a large enough sample has been seen, or where science textbooks have published the results of the experiments for teaching science students?

Oh that's right..... you don't RELY on science to back up your skewed worldview.

Gee Dubyah

ref post 63 and 64

You know what I respect about you is that this is a real conversation we are having (take note John Wright).

You are acknowledging the facts in my postings and I acknowledge yours.

Please take note, I would not describe myself as a creationist, more as a evolutionary sceptic. I contend I dont know enough science to take a firm position on these things.

Good points about the vestigal legs of snakes and the whales finger bones.

Biblically there are a few potenitally relevant points. The whole earth was cursed by sin and warped. Animals became carnivores, weeds appeared, man had to work the land where before it provided freely for him. Human life expectancy dropped from c.800 years to three score and ten.

The bible does record that the snake walked before it was cursed for its part in the fall of man. Part of that curse was that from then on it would crawl through the dust on its belly.

I dont know anything about a whale's finger bone, but are you sure it could not easily be accepted as a reasonable part of a whale's skeleton?

Another bone structure which supports genisis is Eve's spare rib of course.

I have to say, I think it takes a huge amount of faith from evolutionists to believe in it without any evidence of a missing link, when you think about it. I think that is more than the missing part of a puzzle, as far as Dawkins is concerned it would appear more like the wheels of his car are missing and he hasnt noticed.

I dont think evolution should be dismissed, I am not qualified to say that, but I am qualified to challenge the obvious holes in it. that is my objective.

I accept that any missing link could appear almost man or almost ape, but I think we could announce substantial progress if were able to find a credible missing species that was somewhere in between. Fair point?

Evolution bends the rule of our observable world much less than that of a Deity?

Darwin certainly disagreed with you there, as far as I am aware he was alarmed how seriously his theories were taken and retracted them all on his death bed.

I mean, mankind has only believed in evolution for a few generations, come on. Lets get some perspective.

I still have to come back to that missing link here. I thought scientists demanded rock solid evidence before they would declare their position. I just cant understand how they allow themselves to reverse these rules for evolution?

You will never prove God, but there is an old saying "There are no athiests in an earthquake".

Here is an experiment, ask God to prove himself to you. If you refuse because you dont believe it possible to test this new ground, then you have acknowledged your prejudice in the experiment and need go no further.

PB

John

To be fair, I am not an expert on this area and I cant enter into a detailed debate, so if we exclude it as evidence altogether for the sake of argument are you now telling me that there is nothing science cannot offer a credible explanation for?

PB

John

Im honestly a bit confused here, what am I ignoring in your posts?

It's just that is seems to turn all the laws of science on its head to cite evolution of man from ape as fact before the evidence has been found....?

Is that not a fair point?

PB

PS I have raised several non-biblical observations for debate, but please do not make the mistake of thinking I hold them as articles of faith. I am not an expert on any of them but thought there were revelvant, but not watertight.

Having said that Gee Dubyah, I think it pretty unfair to ascribe someone else's folly over Roswell onto Panin.
It doesnt show much integrity in approaching the subject.

John

I've looked again at post 33.

I never dismissed the evolutionary scientists mentioned, that is your conclusion.

I am not qualified to dismiss them. Heard me say that before? I am pointing out, and you are agreeing me, that other scientists disagree that Lucy is a missing link.

I am only saying there is a credible debate.

You yourself say Lucy is contentious and so does that article. So if Lucy is contentious how much more so the new find that builds upon the findings of Lucy. Those are all fair points John.

And are you really suggesting you dont think we will ever find a missing link?

I AM NOT DISMISSING EVOLUTION JOHN, HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT.

I am challenging what I see as the holes in it. I am not qualified to dismiss it.

I have said this over a dozen times now John, why arent you getting this?

PB

ok John

Just had a look at the website of the group that found this Ethiopian fossil this March.

A few things I would note;-

The general consenus of the media coverage is that this find would add fuel to the fire over the debate about evolution. So were we depending on this fossil to settle the issue?

Please note, I still think it rather late in the day for evolutionists to be certain about their theory if it hangs on a fossil found only eight months ago.

I looked up the webiste of the stone age institute but there was little in the way of clear descriptions or overall photographs of what they had found in order to make a judgement on it. It seemed to be mainly interpretative of the data/fossils.

I think it would be quite fair in scientific terms to let these finds bed down for a year or two so more evidence and discussion can come out on them.

I know creationist groups and the stone age institute are having debates about this find that are way over my head.

So post 30: the Associated Press in New York said the find was "certain to fuel an old debate" in a "contentious feud" over evolution/creationism.

If that is good enough for Associated Press it is good enough for me for now;- the debate continues, it says.

PB

PB- I have 2 further criticisms of your approach here, and, as always, you are free to ignore them completely if you so wish.

1) You say so many things at once that it's difficult to know how to begin to respond to you. This is the latest of several times I have approached this blog today to deal with some of what you say, and I honestly haven't the time or desire to deal with every sentence you throw in. If we reigned it in to one post and one issue at a time, I think we'd get a lot further (that's just an observation, and I'd be willing to play by the same rules if you like).

2) As part of that, I think we should stick to observable, confirmed science and theory. We wouldn't, for example, have to deal with statements like the one you just made on women having one rib less than men. That, PB, is an old wives' tale, FAR from biological truth. You wonder why I have a problem engaging in real discussion with you. That's only the latest in several myths and conspiracy theories you've touted so far IN THIS THREAD ALONE, and if having a real discussion with you means having to rebut and clarify every single one of these curiosities, I think you'll have a hard time finding anyone who'll take you seriously enough to engage you with it. Same goes for the 'souls weighing a few grams' idea.... it's pure garbage, without any empirical truth whatsoever. If you believe that stuff, I'm content to let it be and not criticise you for it, but you can't bring it up in a discussion about origins.

In return, I'll play by the same rules and try to be less scathing in my remarks. Deal?

John

I agree I have thrown in a lot of things I cant stand over 100 % and I will try and take that on board.

Having said that I dont quite accept soul weight is "total garbage". The experiments were carried out by a medical doctor, who gathering hard data, but this was not replicated in large scale studies to gain acceptance the scientific community at large.

Having said that, I did understand it was a fact women have one more rib than men, am I wrong here?

And I believe there are others who have built on Panin's work, but have not researched it in depth; I still dont accept your website refutes his work.

But listen, if you only have time to answer one point today, please just do this one;-

Do you really totally reject everything that has not been verified with empirical research and accepted by the scientific community at large?

That 'seems' a tad closed minded for someone who describes themselves as a Christian?

I'm curious how that hangs together for you?

I offer a deal in that if I am going off the track of the actual debate then I wont complain if you ignore that point in total or point that out.

In return it would be nice to get some feedback on post 88 which I sat uop till almost 3am to write for your personal attention after you criticised me. That post 88 is right on the point of this blog entry.

glad we're still talking John

PB

PB- Thanks for your reply. I think we can wrap together several of the general thrusts of your post 90 into the other post titled Creationism 101. Since this page is getting more and more difficult to load, let's continue there! ;-)

Agreed. See all of you on the Creationism 101 blog.

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is
Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; ACTS 17:24

A fundamentalist is bound to be a creationist, accepting the literal account of creation in six days given in Genesis, and affirmed by other references throughout the Bible. The creation account does not appear in a figurative part of the Bible, such as the prophetic book, but in one of the historical books, It is presented as factual, and endorsed as factual by the Lord Jesus Christ, do you, theistic evolutionist doubt the words of our Lord. The fundamentalist knows that human history teems with alternative explanations of origins reflecting man鈥檚 efforts under Satan鈥檚 direction to eliminate the creator, the higher critic, the rationalist, the universalist, the liberal lose any accountability to Him. to abandon the Genesis account of creation is to capitulate to the great lie of Satan, and to turn the Bible into a book conditioned by the limitations of human understanding. Shame on you!

New evangelicals usually find the biblical account of creation an embarrassment. They are to self conscious about their standing in the eyes of the world. They are too anxious to be respected by the world, and non evangelical scholars. They are afraid of being scorned, or of being regarded as obscurantists.

Creation is what God revealed to man, not what man revealed to God.
Male and female created He them;
GENESIS 5:2

Billy - you believe it mate, but millions more don't - why not?.

There's no EVIDENCE whatsoever for creationism.

None, nada, not a jot.

Its a Faith, not a fact.

My goodness, what a lot of nonsense Christians come out with. They also default to a position where they feel compelled to give scientific justification for their beliefs (i.e. defaulting to the modern secular/rational basis for argument). This always seems odd to me given the fact that their faith surely needs no rational proof. Using science to justify religious belief always indicates to me that such Christians must have real doubt. My recommendation is to love that doubt. As Richard Feynmann, the Nobel prize winning physicist said, "Doubt is good. It's much more interesting not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong."

Richard Dawkins is marvellous at debunking the nonsense that all religionists propagate as they try to justify absurd, outdated and outmoded belief systems. Many of these systems of belief were developed centuries ago. Surely believers should be few and far between thse days - given our scientific developments. Instead, they seem to be everywhere. As Professor Rees, of the Royal Society, said yesterday, religious belief systems indicate intellectual impoverishment. Creationists, let's face it, are ill-educated. Therefore, let's ignore them. In fact, let's not. Let's make fun of them.

REF : POST 95
WHAT NONSENCE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT EXPLAIN YOURSELF INSTEAD OF SOME VAGUE GENERALISATIONS,IT SEEMS ODD TO ME THAT DAWKINS SHOULD QUOTE THE BIBLE THAT HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN TO JUSTIFY HIS ARGUMENT FLAWED SUPPOSITIONS, SUPPOSE THIS SUPPOSE THAT, SCIENCE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE BIBLE THAT IS FACT, I SAY TO YOU DISPROVE IT,ALISTER McGRATH IS MARVELLOUS IN EXPOSING DAWKINS REFUTE IT,LIFE IS ONLY PRODUCED 'AFTER HIS KIND' DISPROVE THAT.

Dawkins argues very well that religious faith removes the need for thought. Dawkins quotes the bible to clearly illustrate the contradictions and absurdities contained within it. He also quotes from the Koran and other relious texts to show the sheer cruelty and immorality contained within them.

Dawkins also argues that since Christians do not believe in Thor and Wotan, or Zeus and Ares and Hermes, or Shiva and Vishnu, they too are "atheists" about other peoples' gods.