Who do you think is the most hated man in history? Is it the murderer of millions, Adolf Hitler, or perhaps mass murderer and terrorist Osama Bin Laden? I don’t think so. I think Jesus of Nazareth is by far the most hated person of all time. Who else can you think of whose name is used daily as a cuss word? Two thousand years after He was on this earth, even Hollywood uses it as profanity, in the name of entertainment.
Why is there such a deep contempt for Jesus Christ? That is easy to answer. This is what He said of why the world hates Him: “The world cannot hate you; but me it hates, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil” (John 7:7). The world hates Jesus Christ for the same reason criminals hate the police. He accuses them of crimes against God.
Despite the hatred, the Bible warns (and Scripture cannot be broken) that every hate-filled human being will bow the knee to Jesus Christ and be judged by Him. Most think of Him as “the Son of God,” and limit Him to being whatever they think that means. But the Scriptures clearly tell us that He was actually God “manifest in the flesh” (see 1 Timothy 3:16 KJV, NKJV) and that “all things were made by Him” (see John 1:1-3 and Colossians 1:15-16). That's why they will bow the knee.
The reason that God was manifest in the flesh was to provide a morally perfect sacrifice for the sins of the world, and the reason that we needed a sacrifice is because we are in debt to God’s Law. If you don’t believe you are in trouble, listen to this part of the moral Law: “Whoever looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery already with her in his heart.”
Jesus warned that the Day will come when every one of us will stand before God and give an account even of our secret sins . . . sins of lust, of hatred, and evil imaginations. The Bible tells us that liars and thieves will not enter Heaven, and warns of a terrible place called Hell that awaits for all who are found guilty on that day.
The last words of Jesus on the cross were “It is finished!” In other words “the debt has been paid.” His suffering on the cross was sufficient to pay our fine for us. His consequent rising from the dead means that God can now legally commute our death sentence. All we have to do to find everlasting life is to repent and trust Jesus alone for our eternal salvation. The plan of salvation is that simple.
A word of warning. Once you find peace with God, hold on, because the world will hate you because you belong to Jesus Christ.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
World’s Most Hated
88 comments:
"His consequent rising from the dead means that God can now legally commute our death sentence."
That suggests that God is under some law. Whose law? If God is Jesus and Jesus is God, why did Jesus have to have himself killed to forgive us, that is, why does our 'debt have to be paid'?
Colostridium
That suggests that God is under some law. Whose law? If God is Jesus and Jesus is God, why did Jesus have to have himself killed to forgive us, that is, why does our 'debt have to be paid'?
It has to be paid because we broke Gods law. He loves us and had to reconcile us to him. That is like asking why a parent had to punish a child for stealing cookies from the cooky jar. God is not under his own law the law flows from his nature but like a good judge he had to carry out his justice.
The law began in the Garden of Eden. God created man and woman and placed them in the garden. He set up a rule, telling them that they may eat any of the fruit in the garden, except this one particular tree. God gave man free will. He told them not to eat the fruit, or else they would die. Once they ate the fruit, God had to follow through with his law and from that day forward, all humankind and animals and everything on the earth died. In the New Testament, the Bible says that since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. The only way God could save man, was to make himself man and become a sin offering on our behalf. For years, man had sacrificed lambs and the first fruits of their herds, giving the best they had to God, but this wasn't enough. God, in order to put away sin, once and for all, had to make himself sin. He made himself sin for us, on our behalf. Because we could not pay the price ourself. The sacrifice had to be perfect and unblemished, like the lambs in the Old Testament, so God made himself like a lamb to place before God as a sacrifice for sin. He took on our sin so we could take on his righteousness. We exchange our sin, for his perfect nature when we repent and place our trust in him. As we grow in our walk with him, we become more like him as time passes. He does a great work within us to be perfected when we go to be with him.
Yeah Clostridium, the whole God sent Himself to earth to suffer and die for us in order to redeem us in His own eyes and convince Himself not to smite us all down in His infinite wrath is a bit of mental gymnastics that requires extensive stretching first to avoid injury.
To be honest Ray, I'd have probably said the most hated guy on the planet is either that Culkin kid from "Home Alone" or Steven Seagal, but maybe I'm just speaking to my own personal biases there.
I dunno, maybe all the blatant flame-baiting you do on this blog has something to do with your delusions of persecution...
So that he can be consistent with His own standards of justice. Either you can be punished, or Christ can be punished in your place, but either way someone has to pay for your sins.
The last words of Jesus on the cross were “It is finished!”
Is that so? According to Matthew and Mark his last words were, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"
Luke has his last words as, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit."
Your quote comes from John. Please explain to me how an inerrant book can get something so important as the last words of its main character so wrong.
Maybe these 4 different versions were written around 50-80 years later based on hearsay and stories. Yeah that could account for the discrepancy....
"steve said...The last words of Jesus on the cross were “It is finished!” Is that so? According to Matthew and Mark his last words were, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" Luke has his last words as, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." Your quote comes from John. Please explain to me how an inerrant book can get something so important as the last words of its main character so wrong. Maybe these 4 different versions were written around 50-80 years later based on hearsay and stories. Yeah that could account for the discrepancy...."
Steve...no discrepancy. The traditional order of His last sayings is:
1. Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do (Luke 23:34).
2. Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise (Luke 23:43).
3. Woman, behold your son: behold your mother (John 19:26-27).
4. Eli Eli lema sabachthani? ("My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?", Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34).
5. I thirst (John 19:28).
6. It is finished (John 19:30).
Father, into your hands I commit my spirit (Luke 23:46).
"I like your Jesus... but I do not like your Christians" - Ghandi
brian said--
It has to be paid because we broke Gods law. He loves us and had to reconcile us to him. That is like asking why a parent had to punish a child for stealing cookies from the cooky jar.
You see, Clostridium, God has to punish disobedience--that's what loving parents do. So if you happen to be a parent yourself, the next time your child steals a cookie ask yourself: "What would God do in this situation?"
Then emulate Him. You want to be more Godlike, right C? Set your child on fire and keep him on life support so you can continue to torture the evil child for years to come. Then do the same to every other child you see.
Isn't God great?
Believers: Ask yourselves something just for laughs. Think of all the vile things that people have done. Now pick one of the worst examples--drowning your kids in a bathtub, say. Then ask "Would you still worship God even if he physically drowned 5 helpless kids in a bathtub in front of you?"
In other words--Is there nothing so vile that it couldn't become a holy act just because God did it?
The atheist says no--there are things even God can't do without becoming evil himself. IMHO, God drowning nearly the whole human race was not only evil, but orders of magnitude worse. Torturing someone like Anne Frank is an unspeakable moral obscenity. But when confronted with it, you just wave it away--'She deserved it, for being in a different religion than me. She had a chance to join my religion, and she refused.'
But still you worship Him. How can this be?
Ray Comfort:
It still looks like a discrepency in the actual text. All you have done is point out that humans have constructed a tradition to mask that discrepency. I thought you said something about "not following the traditions of men."
why is it all so different? have you ever read a news story written by four different newspapers? same story four different views... thay are not going to all be exactly the same in their reporting...
Ooo, once again Ray works his magic of making the Bible say what he wants it to say instead of what it says. It all makes sense if you just keeping telling yourself it does.
You know, the same way Jesus' family fled to Egypt after his birth to avoid the slaughter of the innocents ordered by Herod while simultaneously remaining in Jerusalem for the Presentation before returning directly to Nazareth because there is no slaughter of the innocents.
See? You just have to say it real fast.
Then after he's arrested Jesus answers both none of and all of the charges against him before being dressed in a scarlet robe or a purple robe and then carrying his cross to Golgotha all by himself while being helped by Simon of Cyrene. Then while he was crucified he was mocked by both of the criminals hanging next to him, except that one of them may have actually not mocked him and indeed rebuked the other for doing so. Then of course he was offered wine to drink, and/or vinegar and myrrh, which he then refused to drink...or maybe he drank it if you believe John.
Hmm...Sorry Ray. Sure looks like different authors telling different stories to make different points. Trying to shoehorn the gospels together, even just the Synoptics, is like trying to make a unified timeline out of the Godzilla films.
:-\
Nice try though.
A Righteous & Holy God will not tolerate corrupting influence of unrightousness of defiled unholiness in His presence. Further a Just God will have to ensure that absolute justice is done all the time. Anything less would be unjust and antithetical to the character of a just God.
To merely forgive sin without fulfilling the requirements of justice is therefore not an option for a Just God.
God has said the wage of sin is death. The soul that sins will die. After death comes judgment. There must be death, there must be judgment.
God has said that the life is in the blood. For the requirements of Law which mandate death to be fulfulled, blood must be spilled.
All throughout the God given civil law to Israel is the idea of a kinsman redeemer. If you ended up in servitude or debt, lost or sold your property, your kinsman - any relative, however distant - was absolutely allowed under the Law to redeem you by paying your debt in full and your creditors had no choice but to accept the redemption price and release you and your property.
If a law is broken, Justice requires just, full and complete compensation. If God wants to forgive you, then He is responsible for that just, full and complete compensation.
If the penalty is death - which requires the spilling of blood to be met, God must spill His blood and die in your stead. God became your kinsman, became a man. He died on that cross. He paid your debt, He ransomed and redeemed your soul. The dictates of Justice were fulfilled within the framework of the Law.
God has completed this task in a manner wholly consistent with His Just character. His righteousness is imputed to you, thus allowing you to enter into His presence. It is consistent with His Righteous character and it evinces a character of love and goodness that is beyond my ability to comprehend.
The only law then that God is under is His own character. God will not violate His own character but has given a way for you to be saved consistent with all aspects of His character.
Then ask "Would you still worship God even if he physically drowned 5 helpless kids in a bathtub in front of you?"
Romans 9:18-21 (KJV)
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
Paul seems to have anticipated your argument some 2000'ish years ago.
Most hated man = Jesus Christ
then again
Most loved God-man = Jesus Christ.
It is funny to think that although so many hate Jesus, so many love Him also.
Keep it up Ray! :)
Captain Howdy said, "You see, Clostridium, God has to punish disobedience--that's what loving parents do. So if you happen to be a parent yourself, the next time your child steals a cookie ask yourself: "What would God do in this situation?"
Then emulate Him. You want to be more Godlike, right C? Set your child on fire and keep him on life support so you can continue to torture the evil child for years to come. Then do the same to every other child you see."
LOL! That's about right, thanks for that.
"Isn't God great?"
Not according to Christopher Hitchens!
May the Great Noodler bless you, Captain!
"If the penalty is death - which requires the spilling of blood to be met, God must spill His blood and die in your stead. God became your kinsman, became a man. He died on that cross. He paid your debt, He ransomed and redeemed your soul. The dictates of Justice were fulfilled within the framework of the Law."
Does anyone else see a contradiction in a "god" dying?
"If the penalty is death - which requires the spilling of blood to be met, God must spill His blood and die in your stead."
So god is bound by a law? That is clearly what you stated, he has no choice, thats what the law must hold him to. Wait, I thought god is omniscient and "outside" of time and thus already knew every event in the physical universe from beginning to end before any of it played out. If so, he could have chosen from the get-go to just recognize the outcome of his own design and decide not to punish us. That he had foreknowledge of all our eventual actions, and still decided to have himself killed and torture us forever, tells me that god (if he exists) is malevolent and quite peculiar.
Anthony,
You need to think more like a monarch. If you want to change a rule, you should be able to change a rule. God really didn't need to have himself killed (which is impossible given his attributes). Justice would require the guilty to pay the price...you claim that an innocent pays the price. this is not justice. This is positively immoral. That would be like you murdering someone and your mother is executed in your stead. Get the picture?
steve said...
The last words of Jesus on the cross were “It is finished!”
Is that so? According to Matthew and Mark his last words were, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"
Luke has his last words as, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit."
Your quote comes from John. Please explain to me how an inerrant book can get something so important as the last words of its main character so wrong.
Maybe these 4 different versions were written around 50-80 years later based on hearsay and stories. Yeah that could account for the discrepancy....
Steve,
The answer is simple. The Gospels are written by four different people. Several different people can witness the same event and when they describe the event they witnesses there may be some small differences because they are retelling what happened from each individual's point of view. I sounds to me like you might be gagging on a gnat because you don't want to answer to God for your sins.
"That suggests that God is under some law. Whose law? If God is Jesus and Jesus is God, why did Jesus have to have himself killed to forgive us, why does our 'debt have to be paid'?"
He is the law.
Gods justice demands the death of a wicked so that His wrath will be satisfied. Thats why we need a man to represent us & also a God who's life is not borrowed. That is Jesus Christ who has the power to lay down His Life & has the power take It back. God is just & cannot overlook sin.
"for the wages of sin is death.. -Romans 6:23" :)
Vedechagn:
"Paul seems to have anticipated your argument some 2000'ish years ago."
Too bad he didn't really answer it. He simply said that god does whatever he wants. When humans demonstrate that sort of character, we call them bad and/or spoiled.
Your quote is interesting for a different reason, however. It essentially contradicts the claim that god wishes that none should perish. When you assert that your god hardens whom he wills, you state that he insists that those people will perish. In particular he wills them to perish in advance. But, hey, that is what you worship.
VcdeChagn said...
Me: Then ask "Would you still worship God even if he physically drowned 5 helpless kids in a bathtub in front of you?"
Romans 9:18-21 (KJV)
Paul seems to have anticipated your argument some 2000'ish years ago.
Telling me to shut up is not a reply to my argument, and that's exactly what Paul is telling me to do. You're losing me.
steve said...
The last words of Jesus on the cross were “It is finished!”
Is that so? According to Matthew and Mark his last words were, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"
Luke has his last words as, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit."
Your quote comes from John. Please explain to me how an inerrant book can get something so important as the last words of its main character so wrong.
Maybe these 4 different versions were written around 50-80 years later based on hearsay and stories. Yeah that could account for the discrepancy...
Hey Steve if you and I where telling a story from our perspective of some thing we witnessed, there would be differences. You may write one thing you saw, and I write something else that I heard. Does that make either of us wrong, or guilty of falsifying what was said or done? No it is simply two people telling the same story but hearing or seeing something and choosing different things to document. The old argument that you use doesn't stand up in Scriptural criticism. All of these things have been addressed over and over, and answered by those that have dedicated their careers to breaking down writings from antiquity, Christian and Non-Christian scholars.
The other issue is who are you or I to question God and how he wants to redeem his creation. He created the Law we broke the Law and he chose to die for our crimes, who are you to tell him that he can't or is wrong for HIS plan.
I am sure you will argue the whole thing, but, thats ok I understand, I used to do that too.
Skippy,
Well stated and thanks.
Trying to make the events and statements of the Bible fit into logical sequences is like trying to unscramble eggs.
However, from what they are saying, if you get born again, the words of the bible look different to you.
For example, there are two mutually exclusive accounts of creation in Genesis, but once you are born again, those words somehow magically change (they only chage for believers though) and become the same story. You just can't see it because you are not righteous enough. /sarcasm off.
capt. howdy said:
'She deserved it, for being in a different religion than me. She had a chance to join my religion, and she refused.'
You're wrong there. You keep trying to make this out to be an 'us verses them' thing. It's not at all.
This is a YOU verses God thing. Quit trying to deflect the blame for sin on God when it is your own heart that causes it.
All mankind has sinned against God and deserves death. God is merciful and offers the gift of salvation to all who will believe.
You are more concerned with arguing about Anne Frank and drowning children than you are dealing with the only real issue that concerns you directly - and that is your sinful heart.
Think about it.
Bill
The one thing that some of you have mentioned but most failed to see who Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were all writing to. The audience determined how it was written.
Matthew - wrote a historical book about Jesus. From before his birth til he ascended into heaven.
Luke - wrote of Jesus' miracles, especially healing. Why healing?? Luke was a doctor and like most doctor's, see things from a doctor's standpoint.
If you took any of 2 of the 4 gospels, there are differences, but think of it like this. You have four different newspapers. One is primarily interested in causes of accidents, another is interested in how the wreck looked, one is interested in the conditions of those involved and another is interested in the future results(bills, etc). All four newspapers see and accident unfold before their eyes, yet they will all write a different story. Are all the stories accurate or the cause of 4 different sets of eyes looking at the same thing??
"If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also." John 15:18-20
In Jesus,
Cory
Hatedvsloved,
Then the bible is not inerrent.
By the way, Luke was not an eyewitness. He was writing from heresay.
"dale said... Hatedvsloved,
Then the bible is not inerrent.
By the way, Luke was not an eyewitness. He was writing from heresay."
Not true Dale. Read Luke 1:1-4. It seems that most of your information is heresay from atheist websites. Best you read your Bible.
Sorry Ray,
Luke 1:1
"Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;"
"They" delivered the story to "Luke."
"They" may have said they were eyewitnesses. That is fine. But if I witness something and then report it to you, then if you report it to someone else, it becomes heresay.
"Luke" was not an eyewitness, as I stated earlier.
"Luke's gospel is a compilation of various interviews with eye-witnesses and close followers of Jesus (Luke 1:1-4)."----Domini.org
"1. For as much as many eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have set forth and delivered to us a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of these things...."-----Practicegodspresence.com
"The introductory dedication to Theophilus, 1:1-4 states that "many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word", and that the author, "after investigating everything carefully from the very first" has decided to compose an orderly account "so that [Theophilius] may know the certainty of the things [he has] been taught".------Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 116-117.
Also, the writer of the story never identifies himself anywhere in the text.
@Clostridium
you wrote:
God really didn't need to have himself killed (which is impossible given his attributes). Justice would require the guilty to pay the price...you claim that an innocent pays the price. this is not justice. This is positively immoral. That would be like you murdering someone and your mother is executed in your stead. Get the picture?"
I disagree with you as to the meaning of Justice, I think. You are combining the meanings of Justice with Punishment possibly; I am not sure. If you get a speeding ticket and I pay the fine, the Law is satisfied. When the Law is satisfied, that is one of the ways in which Justice is done.
Perfect Justice for murder would be to replace the murdered. Punishing the murderer, strictly speaking, operates no restoration. Righteous indignation requires punishment of the murderer, not Justice.
God can die if He chooses to become a man. Maybe re-read my earlier post. I think you may be firing off responses too quickly.
Ray,
I'm glad your mind is flexible enough for those mental gymnastics, because mine sure isnt. How exactly was this acceptable order established? Was it done by man?
Susan,
The answer is simple. The gospels werent written until approximately 30-50 years afterwards. They werent witnesses at all. They heard stories and used those as bases to build their legends. Matthew was first in his fairy tale, then Mark used much of that for his a little bit later. Luke changed some things, and then John came along much later and just compiled a story based off oral traditions and stories.
It's amusing how those who claim the bible to be a "divinely inspired, inerrant, perfect work of god, etc..." are the ones who need to make the most excuses for it. If it is such a great book, and everything in it is right and all, why do believers need to make so many excuses for it? Could it be that you might realize that its far from a perfect work? Maybe your desire to have it be what you want leads you to these ridiculous explanations and interpretations.
Gagging on a gnat? While your analogy is a little odd, my reply is thus. How exactly do my sins relate to this discussion? We go from questioning the bible to my sins? And what is it with you people always telling us that we are just afraid of our sins, dont want to answer for them, blah blah blah?
We are the only ones who aren't afraid! We all live our lives, but at least we dont live every day in fear of burning in hell if we anger our space daddy.
Bruce,
You got to the whole issue right there when you said " ...who are you or I to question God...". Thats the problem I see with people here. Too scared to question because your religion tells you not to.
Scriptual criticism? Please provide this for me.
Hatedvsloved,
While I see your point here, even in your analogy the end of the story would be the same. For instance if you took 4 different account of 9/11, one might focus on the terrorists, one on the people on the planes, one on the people of NYC, and the 4th on the people in the towers. Those 4 might have different versions or foci when relating the same event. However, they at least would all get the final moment right, something the bible does not do. I guess I'm just too logical to "understand" the bible.
Ray,
Dale made excellent points. Anything not seen by an individual and related by them is heresay. The same with all "revelation". Seen by one person, when they tell another it becomes heresay. It's amusing though how believers accept 2000 year old rumors as fact. If I said I had a vision of the Flying Spaghetti Monster you would laugh at me. Yet a believer goes to a church, talks in gibberish, then falls down and twitches for a while, and thats perfectly normal and accepted as god working in you?
I think Dale has a good point there, Ray, but the fact that Luke wasn't an eyewitness himself doesn't take away from his superior quality as a historian. There are no problems in any of his writings with regard to places, dates, or people--and his books are a prime target for skeptics and have been for a long time.
In fact, the reason Sir William Ramsay went to the Middle East in the first place was to disprove the Books written by Luke. He came back a Christian, totally convinced that everything Luke wrote was true. In his expert opinion, all of the Gospels were each "written by a baptized Jews in the 40s and 50s AD" (quoted in Dave Hunt's book, In Defense of the Faith)
captain howdy said, "IMHO, God drowning nearly the whole human race was not only evil, but orders of magnitude worse."
Where does it say those "humans' you speak of were human?
In Jesus,
Cory
michael said, "Most hated man = Jesus Christ
then again
Most loved God-man = Jesus Christ.
It is funny to think that although so many hate Jesus, so many love Him also."
You missed one formula...
Most talked about man-Jesus Christ.
That would account for your final conclusion. Why all the hate in your post? Why do you hate God? What did He do to you while you were growing up?
In Jesus,
Cory
steve said, "If it is such a great book, and everything in it is right and all, why do believers need to make so many excuses for it? Could it be that you might realize that its far from a perfect work? Maybe your desire to have it be what you want leads you to these ridiculous explanations and interpretations."
You forgot one possibility, that it's for the same reason you feel a need to defend your worldview. If your worldview has so few holes in it that it must be the only way, the only truth, and the only life, then why do you defend it at all? Perhaps it's because you see people blatently attacking the credibility of your worldview and you want them to understand what you know to be true.
In Jesus,
Cory
Steve wrote: "Maybe your desire to have it be what you want leads you to these ridiculous explanations and interpretations"
Could not the same be true for all the explanations of a Creator-less universe? Lets see you point that powerful finger of discernment back upon yourself; and be totally honest. Maybe your desire to have it be what you want leads you to your ridiculous explanations and interpretations (and accusations against the Bible).
cory said--
captain howdy said, "IMHO, God drowning nearly the whole human race was not only evil, but orders of magnitude worse."
Where does it say those "humans' you speak of were human?
I beg your pardon?
"God can die if He chooses to become a man."
Anthony,
Can you describe the process by which a god can become a man? Is the only requirement moving the wrong way up the birth canal?
"You forgot one possibility, that it's for the same reason you feel a need to defend your worldview. If your worldview has so few holes in it that it must be the only way, the only truth, and the only life, then why do you defend it at all? Perhaps it's because you see people blatently attacking the credibility of your worldview and you want them to understand what you know to be true."
Cory, we defend it and challenge you because Christians are ruining this government and religion (dogma) has always stood in the way of reason and peace. Our worldview is the only credible one simply because we don't make up invisible beings...except when being sarcastic.
May the Great Noodler be with you
Clos.
"I dunno, maybe all the blatant flame-baiting you do on this blog has something to do with your delusions of persecution..."
hmmm, perhaps you should look into Christian persecution worldwide then. Here in America it's mostly just verbal abuse, but not so in Africa.
Christians in Crisis and Voice of the Martyrs are two such organizations that document worldwide Christian persecution when the media ignores it - there's a reason the media ignores it.
Anthony,
The difference is that many of my ideas and beliefs can be tested. I say many because in the case of the beginning of the universe it is currently untestable. However, the rest (with very few exceptions) can be tested and proven empirically. And before you go attacking evolution like always, its been tested and shown correct. Only those of you who only get your information from Ray and Answers in Genesis debate its legitimacy. As for those "scientists" that I know you'll bring in to back it up, they are a very, very slim minority of the scientific community. Right up there with those that believe the Earth is flat.
My world view isnt based upon superstitions, yours is. Youre just so into your superstitions that you cant see it.
Cory,
I agree with Clostridium. I dont feel a need to defend my worldview against you personally. However, when the religious right is running this country into the ground, I feel a duty to speak out against it. When we have a president with the apparent intelligence of a 5th grader, I need to speak out against it. When that same man leads us into a war because he honestly believes god told him to do so, we ALL should question both his leadership and sanity. My only consolation this year so far is that Huckabee no longer stands a chance.
Allah Hu Akbar,
Steve
Since when is disbelieving something equal to hating it? I don't hate Jesus any more than I hate Zeus or Santa Claus.
If you think Jesus is the most hated man that ever lived, I don't think the word "hate" means what you think it does. A lot of people respect many of the teachings credited to Jesus, even if they aren't followers of his.
As well, I don't hate Christians, and the ones that I don't like, it isn't merely because of their religion. I take offense with ANYONE who argues that as a nonbeliever I have no morals, who think that their religion should be taught in public schools, or that the laws of their holy book should be the laws of the land, regardless of their religions affiliation.
Thanks for reading!
"Skippy said...I dunno, maybe all the blatant flame-baiting you do on this blog has something to do with your delusions of persecution..."
Not sure what you are talking about Skippy. I have never been really persecuted for my faith. I've been beaten up, chased, spat on, punched, mocked, lied about, but nothing like what early Christians or those in Russia or China have had.
Sinned34 said:
"Since when is disbelieving something equal to hating it?"
Christians jump all over non-christians because they think we hate their god. Nothing could be further from the truth because my mind (there is no room for hate in my heart) and my personality will not allow me to hate.
I have overcome much adversity and the resposibility for that success falls on me.
Forgiveness is a gift that I give to myself as an emotional creature of this good earth.
Ray,
Didn't Jesus say that if you call on him he will appear? Why don't you ask him to appear and tell you what his actual last words were?
:>
Steve said, "The difference is that many of my ideas and beliefs can be tested."
Amen!!!! Halleluia!!! Brotha has been touched by complex carbohydrates and is one with the pastafarian!
"When that same man leads us into a war because he honestly believes god told him to do so, we ALL should question both his leadership and sanity. My only consolation this year so far is that Huckabee no longer stands a chance."
Preach on!!!
"I've been beaten up, chased, spat on, punched, mocked, lied about, but nothing like what early Christians or those in Russia or China have had."
While this is regretable, it is difficult to feel sorry for you because you bring it on yourself with your style of "ministry". You get people pretty riled up.
steve wrote:
"And before you go attacking evolution like always, its been tested and shown correct."
No, it absolutely has not. Keep studying it. I challenge you to examine the "facts" about evolution and see how much faith is really required in its so called facts. So much of what is propagated as "fact" and as "true" really is not... Just a lot of hearsay, speculation and theory repeated so often that it is now thought of as true... I studied it for many years and almost made a career out of it. Evolution requires more faith than Christianity.
clostridium write:
"Can you describe the process by which a god can become a man?"
Can you desribe the process by which a random set of molecules becomes a self replicating, self repairing DNA molecule?
captain howdy said, "I beg your pardon?"
Sorry, I can't give you that. I don't have that kind of authority. Perhaps you'll accept the pardon that Jesus is extending you right this moment.
In Jesus,
Cory
Dale-
Believe it or not there is a way to make the Bible make a bit of sense.
Richard Friedman is an OT Biblical scholar who works with the documentary hypothesis - basically the idea that you can tease apart the authors of various books and chapters in the bible using linguistic queues and thematic similarities. His book "The Bible With Sources Revealed" talks about this at length and includes the OT sorted out by author. Pretty cool stuff.
Some of Bart Ehrman's popular works deal with similar themes in regards to the NT, as does "The Bible Against Itself" by Randal Helms.
Ray-
Let's be fair here. Russia and China do some pretty rough stuff to Christians, sure. But they do the same thing to Jews, Muslims and anyone else who espouses an ideology that might conflict with the ideology of the state. You should read about some of the stuff the Chinese are doing to followers of some rather lame little meditation cult called Falun Gong. Prison, torture, "re-education". Nasty stuff.
It's not specifically persecution against Christians, it's persecution against anyone running counter to state ideology. It remains completely messed up and inexcusable. It's also a perfect example of why I contend that the state should have no say with regards to people's freedom of conscience.
Steve,
Where is your proof that macro evolution corresponds to reality? That one creature evolves into a different creature. It is a simple question, really, and please refrain from insulting the fact that I believe in God, in fact the God of the bible. That is irrelevant to this question. Consider me for the question merely "Theist" with no particular mechanics to propose.
I am amazed that people who hold to empirical evidence to prove a point are unable to see that a DIFFERENT conclusion can be drawn from the SAME empirical evidence, when a different philosophical viewpoint or metaphysic is applied. It only LOOKS proven when viewed with certain assumptions, taken "a priori". Naturalism is true, the scientist says as he approaches the empirical evidence, therefore, everything that we see comports to those naturalistic mechanics, and when we don't have answers, keeping in mind that naturalism is true, we will find naturalistic explanations because afterall, naturalism is true and will prove itself. This is one of the things that the ID movement is attempting to point out to science. Naturalism is a philosophy that one chooses to believe best explains lifes big questions. I happen to reject that philosophy. Science holds that the only answers it can come to are naturalistic, why is that, because it is proven? YEAH!? where?
Thanks
steve said, "However, when the religious right is running this country into the ground, I feel a duty to speak out against it. When we have a president with the apparent intelligence of a 5th grader, I need to speak out against it. When that same man leads us into a war because he honestly believes god told him to do so, we ALL should question both his leadership and sanity. My only consolation this year so far is that Huckabee no longer stands a chance."
Except for the "religious right" part I totally agree. Hitler killed ~26 million people under the guise of a "religious right" leader. Just because someone says they're Christian obviously doesn't mean they are. And just because millions of Christian people decide to hang their allegience on a leader like that doesn't make that leader Christian either. Do some history homework and you'll see the leaders of this country are playing the professing Christians as pawns, and are purposefully flushing this country down the toilet for "the greater good." as they see it. Not to mention they're exporting this same madness to the world by and large. This is a world-sized agenda, and America is the leavening in the dough so-to-speak.
As you point out, Bush has been acting like he has the intelligence of a 5th grader, yet he graduated Yale. It's contrary to logic, so there must be more to the story than the media is pumping you full of. And if you honestly think he sent America to war because he "honestly" thinks God told him to is just as illogical. The key word there is "honestly." There's not a lick of truth in him. I've examined his history and seen the evidence. He's not a Christian and likely never was one. Nor is Hillary, Mike, John, or Bill. Check it out for yourself. You guys are extremely capable of using your minds albeit you stop one step short on every conclusion and miss the true answers. Like I've sid before, you guys and gals are so close to the truth it's hard to believe that you can miss it, but you have as well as most Christians. It's no wonder you hate Christianity so much.
In Jesus,
Cory
Skippy said
"Believe it or not there is a way to make the Bible make a bit of sense."
Then you bring out the Documentary Hypothesis. Then you mention Bart Ehrman.
Let me counter breifly by mentioning Josh McDowell's "New Evidence that Demands A Verdict" Section two- that gives first a detailed outline of the JEPD Theory aka Documentary Hypothesis, then the important transitional chapter Chap 19 "Documentary Presuppositions" Chapter 21 offers a lengthy defense of the traditional mosaic authorship view.
Both sides should be considered. Both sides approach the issues with presuppositions, but where does the evidence lead us? McDowell then points out evidences that most liberal scholars like to ignore or fail to consider (or came after their time).
Some samples that apply to the theory in general.
"The Wellhausen School approached the Hebrew religion with the preconcieved notion that it was a mere product of evolution,untouched by the supernatural."(p.418)
"critics have often restricted advanced theological concepts to Israel's later history, concluding that early concepts must have been primitive. Kitchen has conclusively demonstrated that many such "advanced concepts" were common property of the ancient Orient as early as the third millenium B.C. Their widespread presence in so many written documents makes the familiarity of these ideas to the Hebrews likely at any point of their history."(p418-19)
This being offered as a reason to disregard a key concept behind the documentary hypothesis-
"Therefore, the radical critics conclude that a piece of literature can be dated by its stage of religious teaching. One is supposed to deduce that the earlier the literary source, the more primitive the religious concepts." (p419) Which is problematic, considering that supposed advanced concepts can be shown to exist prior to Moses. Far too many holes can be shot into JEPD, this is why it is far from universally accepted.
Is McDowell perfect? no. Is there a website that tries to shoot him down? yes. Is McDowell credible, is his work scholarly? Yes. These chapters are worth a look for anyone.
Thanks
Are you perplexed by the many divisions and denominations of Christianity that are dividing God's people? Do you wonder why the Holy Ghost you love is being quenched at the church you attend? you are not alone. You are hearing the voice of the Spirit calling to you--Come out of her my people. obey that Voice! Allen
Bush not a Christian?!?
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!
Ahem, actually I knew he wasn't from the get-go. I really don't know why so many well meaning Christians think he is. I sure didn't think he is, no matter what he professed. His actions and speech prove otherwise.
Anthony wrote,
"Can you desribe the process by which a random set of molecules becomes a self replicating, self repairing DNA molecule?"
Anthony,
You should look into the SELEX experiments where random sequences of RNA molecules bound to a stationary phase are selected for binding to various substrates. Some sequence of RNA has been found to bind most substrates that have been tested. This molecule is catalytic, serves as its own template and can serve as a template for synthesizing a DNA molecule-in fact, viruses do this. However, current Origin of Life research suggests that the first replicators were not nucleic acids or proteins-this makes the problem more difficult and largely speculative at present. This is the realm of organic chemistry and is an active area of research.
Oddly, when a scientist admits "I don't know" for a difficult problem that no one knows the answer to, the religious person trumpets "see, God did it".
Observation: We don't know
Conclusion: God did it.
Don't you see that you are just filling in a word? Do you realize that people, including Newton, erroniously did this over and over, and each time a physical description was subsequently discovered? Its ok to admit that we don't know-recognizing our current ignorance is necessary for determining directions for future research.
"Except for the "religious right" part I totally agree. Hitler killed ~26 million people under the guise of a "religious right" leader. Just because someone says they're Christian obviously doesn't mean they are."
Are you claiming Pope Pius XII and his cardinals and bishops weren't christian? They supported Hitler you know, supported him. This is the no true Scotsman fallacy: "No true Christian would support Hitler or slavery or repression of science." Well, in each case this occurs.
"It's contrary to logic, so there must be more to the story than the media is pumping you full of. And if you honestly think he sent America to war because he "honestly" thinks God told him to is just as illogical. The key word there is "honestly." There's not a lick of truth in him. I've examined his history and seen the evidence. He's not a Christian and likely never was one. Nor is Hillary, Mike, John, or Bill. Check it out for yourself. You guys are extremely capable of using your minds albeit you stop one step short on every conclusion and miss the true answers."
Funny, it was the religious right who voted the twit in two consecutive terms. We are capable of using our minds...thats why we didn't vote for Bush, you all did because Bush said the magic word "Jesus".
"Where is your proof that macro evolution corresponds to reality? That one creature evolves into a different creature."
Garrett,
Are you familiar with hox genes? How about endosymbiont theory or comparative genomics? Have you kept up with paleobiology or bioinformatics? How much do you know about biogeography or ethology?
"I am amazed that people who hold to empirical evidence to prove a point are unable to see that a DIFFERENT conclusion can be drawn from the SAME empirical evidence, when a different philosophical viewpoint or metaphysic is applied."
Occams razor does away with the God hypothesis when we have a physical mechanism. For instance, replication involves copying a strand of DNA to make an identical template. We take the enzyme DNA polymerase, add nucleotides, salts, a primer and simply vary the temperature. After a few hours, we get millions of copies.
Now, we have the crystal structure of the enzyme and know the chemistry of how the nucleotides are added. You can posit that god is involved, or in the tube, but this assumption is not needed, it doesn't add anything to the explanation. So it is discarded. It turns out that we don't need god(s) in any of our scientific theories. Saying "god did it" just shrinks your god even more until after awhile he will have nothing left to do. Out of a job. Why can't you just accept that the natural world works differently from how the Bible claims. Pretending the universe works the way you were taught in sunday school doesn't make it so.
Garrett,
I also notice that when you all go to the hospital you accept science-including evolution. Otherwise you wouldn't get a flu shot or take new antibiotics. If a pharmaceutical company or physician make a mistake and you are harmed, do you sue them for incompetence? Would it change your mind if they said "we prayed real hard that this pill would work"?
Clostridium said, "Funny, it was the religious right who voted the twit in two consecutive terms. We are capable of using our minds...thats why we didn't vote for Bush, you all did because Bush said the magic word 'Jesus'."
Was I speaking for myself or the "Religiuos Right," whomever they are? Are you incapable of understanding anyone unless you first lump them in a category?
In Jesus,
Cory
Clostridium said, "Are you claiming Pope Pius XII and his cardinals and bishops weren't christian? They supported Hitler you know, supported him. This is the no true Scotsman fallacy: "No true Christian would support Hitler or slavery or repression of science." Well, in each case this occurs."
Did I say anything about those people? Why don't you do a little digging on your own and let me know what you find? If I'm not mistaken, there are two possibilities for those men (and you'd have to examine each person, not just lump them together): they were not Christians or they were fooled by someone claiming to be Christian.
In Jesus,
Cory
AllFiredUp said, "I sure didn't think he is, no matter what he professed. His actions and speech prove otherwise."
Bingo. Matthew 7: You'll know them by their fruits. Not their words.
In Jesus,
Cory
Allen said, "Are you perplexed by the many divisions and denominations of Christianity that are dividing God's people? Do you wonder why the Holy Ghost you love is being quenched at the church you attend? you are not alone. You are hearing the voice of the Spirit calling to you--Come out of her my people. obey that Voice! Allen"
Indeed. The Holy Spirit is ignored because people desire acceptance in a group rather than the Truth of God's Word. Not to mention that the Truth of God's Word is meaningless if you don't crack open that book and learn it, which most people in the pulpits fail to do. They rely on their pastor rather than on the Pastor.
In Jesus,
Cory
Cory,
Yes, and that is why the founding fathers made a secular constitution. They new that all the theocratic colonies would be warring eternally for domination of the government.
Also, the bible is not a document that you could govern people with. As you alluded, there are countless interpretations of the bible and it be impossible to be consistant.
@ dale
I'm sorry, but I can't figure out what you're talking about. Can you point me in the right direction? I don't recall saying anything even in the ballpark of there being many interpretations... etc etc etc, or about the Constitution.
Thanks!
In Jesus,
Cory
Clostriduim..
Thanks for taking the time to respond. Apparently you are unaware of what I understand evolution to be, as well as many christians. There is a distinct difference between micro evolution and macro-evolution. obviously if all you mean by evolution is variations in species, or the ability of species to adapt, new strains emerging after vaccinations etc, then I agree with YOU! Those are MICRO evolution in action....they remain the same species. Macro evolution aka the special theory of evolution is what I am asking proof of....it is not there, my posts are valid. Please be careful not to create a strawman falacy when you are conversing with christians, it is not flattering....I am sorry if i have done the same.
From a previous post here are some objections to the macro view....
1. genetic limits- breeders run into these, see my post above on this. Science uses fruit flies to speed this process up due to short life spans...they are still fruit flies, the freaks die off.
2. cyclical change- within these genetic limits changes observed tend to shift back and forth- Darwins finches exibit cyclical changes rather than projecting forward into new species.
3. irreducible complexity-The eye is a complex organ that can not function without all of its parts in place,and as a complex organ, a gradual process for this is counter intuitive at best. How would natural selection build an eye piece by piece with an end goal in mind, while through the ages it is non functional? see cambrian explosion below
4. non- viability of transitional forms-if a scale became a feather, a creature with a half feather/ half scale would be easy prey on land, and it couldn't get to the air to escape- hopping birds are easy catches for predators so would a hopping bird/lizard transition unable to fly.
5.Molecular isolation- DNA similarity between apes and humans- is this common ancestry, or could it be a common creator. perhaps we share a common genetic code because a creator designed us to live in the same biosphere. See my comments on the complexity of DNA in an above post esp. in regards to probability and implications of a stream of precise data.
7. Stasis- most species that we observe (including in fossils) tend to appear and die out looking much the same.
8. Cambrian Explosion- the precambrian period is known for its lack of fossils, except notably, for recent finds of sponge embryo fossils (how soft would they be?). At the "explosion" all animal groups appear separately, fully formed with eyes and spines and defensive structures out of the blue.HINT- This does not support gradualism.
9.Soft tissue lost in fossils-99 percent of the biology of any organism resides in soft anatomy, which is inaccessible in any fossil. This leaves the door wide open in using the fossil to determine ancestral relationships.
Does it ever dawn on any of you that similarity of structure may be evidence of a common designer rather than a common ancestor? Designs that work are reused in many different forms in engineering, so we can't say that it is illogical to conclude this on pondering it.
I did not appeal to the bible once here, I appeal to scientific evidences and application of a theistic philosophy of science versus a naturalistic philosophy of science.
CLOSTRIDIUM-
When you say that God is not needed, this is another example of a philosophical corruption of the evidences seen. It is just as easily said naturalism is not needed, for God did it, yet you would then cry foul, saying naturalism is real, and God is not....that is a philosophical statement that cannot be proven, you do not know that to be a fact.
DNA replicating itself, so what? Do you go out of your way at work to make it harder for yourself, or if there is an easier way to function, do you go that route? Seems to me an intelligence would make it an easy process, and that self replication would fall into that realm. The bible is not a science textbook and does not give details in these matters, to blame it for that would be absurd.
continuing in my amazement at the objections and misunderstandings here....
clostridium,
I like how you claim that Occams razor logically falls into the naturalist camp. As though a long convoluted naturalistic explanation is simpler than the phrase "God made it". You then point to the observed mechanics of the way nature works and conclude since it seems to run itself, God is not needed, but this is begging the question- how do you know that God did not make it to do so, a certain measure of self replication and self sufficiency would be simpler and efficient, don't you think? Gee, it appears as though things are functioning in a complex biosphere, that needs an explanation, and perhaps all things should be considered. If the answer is actually that God created it, you will never know, because you disallow the possibility.
Common sense tells us that complex structured information comes from an intelligent source, your sentences being an example. The interior of a cell is another example, as is RNA/DNA. Therefore common sense will allow for a creator, an intelligence, without getting bogged down in the specifics of said creator. Please read my above post too.
Interesting, Clos, you need a physical mechanism for Occams razor...where did it come from?
Garret-
Have yet to read much Garret, though I am aware of him. I've actually mostly seen reference to him regarding the idea of monogenesis (the idea that all languages trace back to some usually [in this context] proto-Hebrew language thereby, among other things, validating the Tower of Babel myth). His other apologetic work is more alien to me, so honestly I can only comment on what you've quoted.
The documentary hypothesis as I'm familiar with it doesn't necessarily relegate early beliefs to a bin labeled "primitive" per se, but it does, quite convincingly trace out 4 pretty distinct sets of thematic and theological elements that point to multiple authorship of the Pentateuch. If, say, Ray, Pat Robertson, Benedict XVI, and Al Mohler each wrote a religious treatise and then we shuffled them all together, it would be possible to tease the various threads apart into something close to the original, distinct narratives because, even though they may be broadly similar, they would also carry distinct traces of the author's own perspective and interests. I don't think you'd dispute that fact. DH applies similar methods to the Pentateuch.
An interesting read for anyone who posts here would be "101 Myths of the Bible", which, rather than being quite what it sounds like it would be, is actually a quite interesting read that in many places compares biblical mythology with other, earlier religions indigenous to the region. The opening chapters especially, dealing with the two creation stories in Genesis, do a good job of showing the strength of the DH by elaborating on strong thematic similarities between Genesis and some of the earlier Egyptian creation stories.
Again, I've not read much McDowell, but the quotes you posted seem like he's straw manning the DH a bit. I'll have to check some of his books out before I can give you much more of a critique than that.
Love and peace,
-Skippy
Hi Skippy,
I probably just didn't do McDowell justice in my quotes. It does state the JEPD theory very clearly and easily to understand, as you did. Then counter evidences, always quoting works from both sides, you would probably enjoy the book.
Peace, and I hope you find the truth in your search!
I'll probably have a more in-depth look at McDowell's work in the relatively near future. My to-read pile is enormous at this point.
Garrett said, "I like how you claim that Occams razor logically falls into the naturalist camp. As though a long convoluted naturalistic explanation is simpler than the phrase "God made it"."
Occam's razor is a logical tool, whatever camp you fall in. It is a good guide to follow, but by no means the end-all, we still have to rigorously hypotheses because the simplest answer is not always the correct one. Saying "God made it" is just a word filler. "FSM made it", "The great JuJu at the bottom of the sea made it", see I can do this too. Much easier than actually answering the question.
Garret said, "You then point to the observed mechanics of the way nature works and conclude since it seems to run itself, God is not needed, but this is begging the question- how do you know that God did not make it to do so, a certain measure of self replication and self sufficiency would be simpler and efficient, don't you think?"
Again, you can add God if you'd like, but the mechanics of nature works without it; in other words, we have been able to explain every facet of the universe from the very large to the very small using physical laws. Did god create the laws? Well, by definition, this god could do anything....so we could posit god for anything we want. This isn't useful because it is not falsifiable.
Garrett said, "Gee, it appears as though things are functioning in a complex biosphere, that needs an explanation, and perhaps all things should be considered."
This was considered, for millenia. This was the default hypothesis. We have since explained phenomena once relegated to the gods. Lighting anyone? Attributed to Zeus. Will the sun rise tomorrow? Only if we appease the sun god with a human sacrifice. We even have this tripe with Newton. Laplace explained what Newton claimed god was responsible for.
Garrett said, "If the answer is actually that God created it, you will never know, because you disallow the possibility."
No, I just admit that there is no evidence to support it. I also discount the Bible because it stinks of being written by humans without any inspiration other than their own sordid desires and need to keep order.
Garrett, "Common sense tells us that complex structured information comes from an intelligent source,"
Luckily our "common sense" has been replaced with rigorous experimentation. Increased shannon information in genomes occurs all the time through evolutionary processes.
Garrett said, "The interior of a cell is another example, as is RNA/DNA. Therefore common sense will allow for a creator, an intelligence, without getting bogged down in the specifics of said creator. Please read my above post too."
If you allow for a creator you must provide a mechanism for this creation so you do need "specifics" about the creator. You must establish that there is a creator if you are going to posit one involved in nature. I will read your other post later, I've been at the lab since 5 am and I'm getting ready to leave.
later,
Clos
Garrett said, "Thanks for taking the time to respond. Apparently you are unaware of what I understand evolution to be, as well as many christians. There is a distinct difference between micro evolution and macro-evolution."
The only difference is the scale of time, macro is composed of micro changes over an extended period of geologic time.
Garrett said, "obviously if all you mean by evolution is variations in species, or the ability of species to adapt, new strains emerging after vaccinations etc, then I agree with YOU!"
Obviously, because this is impossible to deny....
"Those are MICRO evolution in action....they remain the same species."
The theory doesn't predict that bacteria will turn into accountants during your lifetime. Evolution is defined as a change in gene frequency in a population over a generation. If an allele frequency changes in a generation the population is said to have evolved. When this population is isolated either geographically, physically, or behaviorally new species can form. The two species are very similar after this divergence, but their trajectories are now going in different directions, these two branches then diverge occupying new environments and modes of life and so on through the generations for millions of years. Small change over extended periods of time-given the rate of mutation and alteration of environment seen in geology-can generate enormous diversity.
"Macro evolution aka the special theory of evolution is what I am asking proof of....it is not there, my posts are valid."
This isn't relativity. Ther is no "special theory of evolution". Listen, Garrett, we know how body plans formed now and how rapid, almost saltatorial changes can occur through altering what are known as the "toolkit genes" or homeobox selector genes such as Pax-6, bmp-2, sonic hedgehog, etc. etc. Are you familiar with morphological gradients during development? If not, please read Sean Carroll's "Endless Forms Most Beautiful", "The Making of the Fittest" and when you have this good foundation, try online at pubmed.org's "book" link and take a look at the online textbook "Development" and "Molecular Biology of the Cell 4th ed" for more rigorous discussion of evo-devo.
Garrett said, "Please be careful not to create a strawman falacy when you are conversing with christians, it is not flattering....I am sorry if i have done the same."
Have I?
Garrett said, "From a previous post here are some objections to the macro view....
1. genetic limits- breeders run into these, see my post above on this. Science uses fruit flies to speed this process up due to short life spans...they are still fruit flies, the freaks die off."
What "limits" do you speak of? Of course there are going to be limits, you aren't going to breed a dog that can jump over your house or fly to the moon. Is this a challenge to the theory? I need you to tell me what "limits" you speak of. Also, interesting you bring up fruit flies, because this was one of the first demonstrations of speciation in the laboratory. I can cite a reference if you'd like-behavioral isolation. Also, the experiments on fruit flies were done to understand how development works at the level of the gene. It was this work that led to the discovery that flies share the same "toolkit" genes as all animals, including humans. Humans have obvious duplications in these toolkit genes and the downstream targets are different in many cases, but the basic patterning is conserved across evolution.
Garrett said, "2. cyclical change- within these genetic limits changes observed tend to shift back and forth- Darwins finches exibit cyclical changes rather than projecting forward into new species."
Directional and stabilizing selection, this is not unexpected, natural selection at work. This is one reason why some favor punctuated equilibrium (punc eek). When the environment stays relatively constant there is not much significant selection pressure; to be sure, founder effects and chance can cause large changes in some populations, but whole ecosystem changes may not occur until there is a major shift in climate, say. This makes sense in ecological terms.
I will continue on the next post...
Garrett said, "3. irreducible complexity-The eye is a complex organ that can not function without all of its parts in place,and as a complex organ, a gradual process for this is counter intuitive at best. How would natural selection build an eye piece by piece with an end goal in mind, while through the ages it is non functional? see cambrian explosion below."
The eye is not irreducibly complex. This from the PBS Evolution website: "The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch." The scientist they talk about is Dan-Eic Nilsson. We even know how the eye develops now, and it is no challenge, we even know the gene that controls this-Pax-6. This gene is found from flies to humans. The same developmental control switch is conserved from flies to humans meaning that eyes developed very early.
As far as "Irreducibly complexity" (IC), I have discussed this with Behe and pointed out flaws that he was unable to argue. A structure may be IC now, that is, if you take a part away the structure may not function. This does not suggest that the structure was always IC, particularly what we know about scaffolding and co-option. Parts that were once accessory can become essential. Behe claimed specifically that "the bacterial flagellum" contains 40 protein parts and is "IC". A paper came out two years ago which showed that there are hundreds of different flagella, constructed in different ways with different parts, and that some flagella contain ONLY 20 PARTS. The genome of E. coli is riddled with numerous flagellar pseudogenes, which doesn't make sense if they were intelligently designed. Behe also claimed that the blood-clotting cascade was "IC". Take a part away and it can't function. First, each of the factors are known as "serine proteases" so they are all the same protein class and there is good evidence that they arose by gene duplication-analysis of and comparison to the primative cascade in crustaceans suggests this. The fatal blow came a year after Behe published his book. Cetaceans (whales and dolphins) lack Hageman's Factor (Factor XII) and their blood clots just fine. They have the gene but it has become non-functional. Behe made a claim, nature performed the experiment a few million years before Behe wrote his book, and so IC has been discredited.
Behe recently published another awful book where he misunderstood the mathematics of selection landscapes....but the best is his central example. Cilia are little projections that aid in motility. In DBB, he claimed, erroniously that cilia are IC. Well, in his next book published last year claimed that the system that constructs the cilium, known as the Intraflagellar transport system (IFT) adds another level of IC, he termed IC^2. He claimed that all ciliated organisms have this-they have to have it. He then makes the case for the "Edge of Evolution" using the causative agent of malarium, Plasmodium falciparum. The details are unnecessary to get into. The point I want to make is that there was a paper that came out a full year before Behe published the book showing that P. falciparum produced their cilium without an IFT. Behe's central example disproved a central concept in his book and the paper came out before he published the book!!!!!!
I could go on and on, and I don't really think I need to touch on the rest of what you wrote because this is all recycled creationist nonsense that any biologist can expose as fatuous with little effort.
"I could go on and on, and I don't really think I need to touch on the rest of what you wrote because this is all recycled creationist nonsense that any biologist can expose as fatuous with little effort."
Any biologist--except, of course, a creationist biologist, because he's too stupid! Right on, Clostridium!
"Interesting, Clos, you need a physical mechanism for Occams razor...where did it come from?"
It isn't a physical phenomenon. Don't listen to people when they say there's no such thing as a stupid question :)
Clostridium,
Thank you for your highly detailed reply. As I am not a scientist, I myself would stick with the larger ideas behind the small details you propose- that is not my field. If I am wrong, then I am wrong, and you are comfortable where you are. AS I understand it, it is false to say regarding IC to cite numerous different flagellum and pointing out that there are simpler flagellum, but rather IC points out gradualism could not occur, because without all of its parts at once, it(that particular flagellum) would not function. Has scaffolding been observed, or is that a theory proposed to fill a gap in knowledge?
Regarding eyes, there are many different eye like structures, does that of neccesity mean that our eyes evolved over time into its current state? It does not, that is not the only option. Then you will say it is the only reasonable option, to which I would reply, that it is not the ONLY option. Of course, how am I supposed to argue this with you (your field), I would still submit you are wrong, as you would that I am, but that I could not possibly demonstrate that to you in your field. It would be like getting in a fist fight with a child, keeping in mind I am not saying you are right.
You said "which doesn't make sense if they were intelligently designed. "
you can't know that...Science may have a different opinion in a few years. It also presumes to know everything about the organism.
then "whole ecosystem changes may not occur until there is a major shift "
more theory, which depends on ecosystem changes via major shifts, when that might not be the mechanism bringing new species at all.
In fact through out your very long post, which I appreciate,it is loaded with "perhaps" and "over-time" assumptions that are supposed to make it true.
Regarding God- if you require empirical evidences at the level of seeing him with your eyes, that won't be happening, which shouldn't be a problem. There are lots of things that you don't see yet you believe, your post having a few examples. Good reasons can be given why I accept the God of the Bible, and Jesus as God, versus other religious beliefs.
Again, thank you for taking my question and objections seriously, and giving me some of your valuable time.
peace!
Garrett said, "AS I understand it, it is false to say regarding IC to cite numerous different flagellum and pointing out that there are simpler flagellum, but rather IC points out gradualism could not occur, because without all of its parts at once, it(that particular flagellum) would not function. Has scaffolding been observed, or is that a theory proposed to fill a gap in knowledge?"
That is a good observation, and one that I forgot to mention. Yes, bacterial flagella contain parts that are used in other functions, this is known as co-option. The ATPase that powers the flagellum is used in many other functions. The major structure, the bearings, the rotor and hook are derived from the Type III secretory system. This flagellar subsystem is almost identical to the TTSS. This goes with cilia too. Cilia are composed of microtubules, and Behe can't think of any way in which this structure could form....the problem is that microtubules are found all over the cell....
Regarding eyes, there are many different eye like structures, does that of neccesity mean that our eyes evolved over time into its current state?"
Not our eyes, humans have always had compound eyes, so have other primates. We have to go back further in time. There is a trade-off between necessity are energy expenditure. To fashion a complex, high maintanance eye when it is not needed, say in the deep ocean or in dark places would be costly. We see fish in caves losing their eyes, but they still form them during embryonic development. Eye function and structure is selected according to the lifestyle of the organism. I know this intuitively sounds like there is something deciding this, but it just boils down to genetic variation and reproductive success. In a population, say an organism with slightly more visual accuity can see prey easier and will be more likely to pass this trait on. This trait may be "added onto" so that the visual accuity continues to be selected for. There is a gradual increase up a slow hill, step-by-step. Some steps are larger than others, but the overall process is gradual.
"It does not, that is not the only option. Then you will say it is the only reasonable option, to which I would reply, that it is not the ONLY option. Of course, how am I supposed to argue this with you (your field), I would still submit you are wrong, as you would that I am, but that I could not possibly demonstrate that to you in your field. It would be like getting in a fist fight with a child, keeping in mind I am not saying you are right."
The difference is that the data is clear. I can say with the utmost confidence that this is correct because it can be backed up with very convincing data.
"You said "which doesn't make sense if they were intelligently designed."
A designer would give cavefish eyes that they dissolve during the embryonic process? How does this make more sense than the interpretation that they once had eyes, don't need them and are now losing them? I am oversimplifying because we understand in quite alot of molecular detail how this works. We look for the most parsimonious explanations, but are always open to new data.
"you can't know that...Science may have a different opinion in a few years. It also presumes to know everything about the organism.
then "whole ecosystem changes may not occur until there is a major shift "
more theory, which depends on ecosystem changes via major shifts, when that might not be the mechanism bringing new species at all."
This is what is observed.
"In fact through out your very long post, which I appreciate,it is loaded with "perhaps" and "over-time" assumptions that are supposed to make it true."
This is how scientists talk. We always leave even the most rigorously explored areas open to new interpretation if the new data compells us to re-examine a phenomenon. Science is not a dogma, we are just humans trying to understand how the natural world works to the best of our ability. It is the best method humans have for determining fact.
"Regarding God- if you require empirical evidences at the level of seeing him with your eyes, that won't be happening, which shouldn't be a problem."
But ask yourself, "why do we not expect that to happen"? You know this won't happen because it never does and it almost certainly never has. the televangelists today claim to speak directly to god and be visited. Imagine what people said 2000 years ago when superstition was even more rampant and skeptical inquiry non-existant.
"There are lots of things that you don't see yet you believe, your post having a few examples."
We can't see electrons, but we know they exist. Most of science is indirect, just because something happened in the distant past, doesn't mean we can't determine what happened to great precision.
"Good reasons can be given why I accept the God of the Bible, and Jesus as God, versus other religious beliefs."
I would be interested in hearing more.
"Again, thank you for taking my question and objections seriously, and giving me some of your valuable time."
Thanks, you too.
While on the topic of how the bible just shows the same event from "different perspectives" or what not, can anyone tell me how exactly Judas died? Couple different ways are written, and that doesnt seem like something that could be explained by your "different perspectives" theory either. Thanks.
Garrett wrote, "Thank you for your highly detailed reply. As I am not a scientist, I myself would stick with the larger ideas behind the small details you propose- that is not my field. If I am wrong, then I am wrong, and you are comfortable where you are."
Garrett, I have no problem with you being wrong, I make many mistakes, we all do. The problem I see is a willingness to accept without scrutiny the creationist position. If you could see through the lens of a biologist, you would recognize that these people are lying; defrauding the public. I realize that this is in concert with your religious beliefs, but they do not fit the evidence, and are patently absurd. I truly hope that you will pick up Carroll's books as I suggested and take a look at the evidence yourself. Why would god be angry if you studied his creation? This is what I don't understand about religious people, you claim god created the universe, and then when we study it and figure it out you claim that a book had it right and that observing nature is ridiculous. Do some research into the subject. If you knew what I know, you would not reject the science; the faith is another matter and I don't see why you should give up either.
Best Regards
Clos
Clostridium said - Don't listen to people when they say there's no such thing as a stupid question :)
I disagree, Clos. To quote one of my favorite websites: "There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."
Ray Comfort:
A word of warning. Once you find peace with God, hold on, because the world will hate you because you belong to Jesus Christ.
Ah, so that's why only atheists are able to be elected to public office, and it's almost impossible for a christian to do it.
Post a Comment