"I sometimes have trouble telling right from wrong. I just thought maybe we could work toward an America in which no one wants an abortion as opposed to making it illegal and having people get it anyway in very dangerous environments. That's just how I see it. I guess I do want it both ways. I want to be both pro-life in terms of my personal life and pro-choice in terms of how I vote." Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn. I appreciate your honesty. However, this is in essence what you are saying, "I want a Germany in which no one wants to kill Jews as apposed to making it illegal and having them killed in very dangerous environments. I want to keep Jews alive in terms of my personal life and have them murdered in terms of how I vote." Nice.
Your "I sometimes have trouble telling right from wrong" pinpoints your problem. Atheism has no moral anchor. There’s no absolute right or absolute wrong. That’s why you can advocate murder and not feel bad about it, all in the name of compassion. In one sense, you may be right about not having a soul. So Kaitlyn, where is your conscience? Why have you so hardened it? If I were in your shoes I would very quickly cry out to God for His forgiveness, and trust Jesus Christ before it’s too late. Once you know His mercy, and once you let His love into your cold heart, you will be horrified that any human being could sink so low as to advocate the killing of children in the womb.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
This is What You are Saying...
151 comments:
Your "I sometimes have trouble telling right from wrong" pinpoints your problem. Atheism has no moral anchor. There’s no absolute right or absolute wrong. That’s why you can advocate murder and not feel bad about it, all in the name of compassion. In one sense, you may be right about not having a soul. So Kaitlyn, where is your conscience? Why have you so hardened it? If I were in your shoes I would very quickly cry out to God for His forgiveness, and trust Jesus Christ before it’s too late. Once you know His mercy, and once you let His love into your cold heart, you will be horrified that any human being could sink so low as to advocate the killed of children in the womb.
You are simultaneously appealing to consequence and to wishful thinking, both of which are logical fallacies. The perceived negative consequences of a position does not demonstrate that the position is false, and the perceived desirability of a position is not evidence for that position's validity.
Ah, the old 'you cannot be moral without absolutes' argument.
Where are your morals from, Ray? God?
Doesn't God say that you shouldn't lie? And yet you repeatedly and *verifiably* lie on this blog on the subject of evolution. Isn't it one of the 10 commandments, the basic laws set down by God?
It's not even that you don't agree with those of us who advocate evolution.
Let me say that again for emphasis. It's not that you don't accept evolution. That is not the fundamental problem.
The fundamental problem is that when you're told what evolution is, you refuse to accept it and just parrot strawman arguments that couldn't possibly be used if you were honest enough to represent the theory as it's own advocates repeatedly tell you it is stated.
If you told us your name was 'Ray Comfort' and we then started insisting your name was 'Ravi Luxury'. It's not even close to being right and it would require a deliberate act of willpower to perpetuate such a lazy falsehood.
So don't you dare preach morality and then denounce atheists for moral relativism; you've repeatedly demonstrated how you pick and choose which of God's laws you follow.
Ray said,
Your "I sometimes have trouble telling right from wrong" pinpoints your problem. Atheism has no moral anchor. There’s no absolute right or absolute wrong. That’s why you can advocate murder and not feel bad about it, all in the name of compassion. In one sense, you may be right about not having a soul. So Kaitlyn, where is your conscience? Why have you so hardened it? If I were in your shoes I would very quickly cry out to God for His forgiveness, and trust Jesus Christ before it’s too late. Once you know His mercy, and once you let His love into your cold heart, you will be horrified that any human being could sink so low as to advocate the killed of children in the womb.
Ray...stop pretending to be Peter Popoff. You are just Ray from nz. Please don't neglect your NBR award winning science documentary. There's nothing more important.
Ahh the unchanging morals of God.
You trim that mustache, Ray?
Leviticus 19:27 - "You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard."
You wear polyester, like mules, or planted different plants in the same field?
Leviticus 19:19 - "You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together."
Just a few fun laws, directly from YHWH to Moses, according to the Bible.
Ray, why do you persist with this line of invalid reasoning? I think it should be legal for parents to spank their child (not beat their child) but I don't advocate that parents do this. Do you see the distinction?
The New American Standard Bible (NASB):
Exodus 21:22-25
"And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no [further] injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any [further] injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
It appears as though this is a possible argument that the unborn child isn´t the same, in God´s eyes, as a born person. Good thing you have absolute ideas about good and evil when God Himself isn't clear cut on the issue.
There was this one way I heard of where you could have a child when you were READY for it...
If only people could figure out how to stop you-know-whatting each other before marriage.
1 O LORD, you have searched me
and you know me.
2 You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar.
3 You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways.
4 Before a word is on my tongue
you know it completely, O LORD.
5 You hem me in—behind and before;
you have laid your hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, too lofty for me to attain.
7 Where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence?
8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.
9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea,
10 even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast.
11 If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me,”
12 even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you.
13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,
16 your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
17 How precious to me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them!
18 Were I to count them,
they would outnumber the grains of sand. When I awake, I am still with you.
19 If only you would slay the wicked, O God! Away from me, you bloodthirsty men!
20 They speak of you with evil intent; your adversaries misuse your name.
21 Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD, and abhor those who rise up against you?
22 I have nothing but hatred for them; I count them my enemies.
23 Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts.
24 See if there is any offensive way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.
(Psalms 139)
Ray is right in so far as atheism in itself has indeed no moral anchor.
This is because strict atheism is not much more than the answer "No" to the question "Do divine beings or a single divine being exist?"
(btw. I'm not a strict atheist, but a functional one. I answered the question "Should we act whether divine beings or a single divine being exist?" with "No")
The moral anchorage of atheists doesn't therefor lay in rest in atheism.
For most atheists I met it rests in Humanism. (and Humanism is indeed capitalized if you refer by it to Humanism as a life-stance)
Right. This coming from those who worship the one who had pregnant women and babies killed routinely in the OT and who is theoretically responsible for the death of every baby because of miscarriages now.
Religous pro-lifers are the height of moral hypocrosy, and for any one of you berks to come along and talk about how atheism has no moral anchor is the biggest joke of all.
Your "I sometimes have trouble telling right from wrong" pinpoints your problem. Atheism has no moral anchor.
Ray, if Atheism has no moral anchor, then what does Christianity have?
Wait! I know!
"Deuteronomy 22:20-1 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death."
And somehow, killing little balls of cells in the womb is worse than stoning a woman to death on her father's door?
I am completely sickened at the thought of using the Bible as my moral anchor.
TEMPLE
There are a couple of interesting differences between abortion and the Nazi holocaust.
In the first place, while the Nazis did more or less legalize murdering Jews, they were hardly the sort to leave this up to private enterprise; they set up a massive propaganda program to encourage people to hate Jews, and to persecute and murder Jews using the resources of the government.
This is not the situation with everything that governments legalize: a government can refuse to criminalize everything from smoking to adultery to criticizing the government itself, and still hope that you won't do any of these things. There is nothing intrinsically puzzling or paradoxical about a government trying to persuade its people not to do something that it has not outlawed (although you can get paradoxical complications, as when the U.S. government subsidizes tobacco, draws millions in tax revenues from cigarettes, and propagandizes against smoking all at once).
Even someone who is saddened or offended by abortion might distinguish between an embryo and a child already born, and not feel that killing the one was quite so bad as killing the other. This brings us to our second point: Jews are unequivocally human. The Nazis had to work to deny this precisely because it was intuitively obvious.
That embryos are equally human depends on the assumption that there's a clear, sharp dividing line between a human individual and a single human cell, and on the assumption that you've drawn that line correctly. Neither assumption seems to me airtight.
We know that fertilized ova have many properties that we don't associate intuitively with "persons," such as the ability to split into two individuals, or to fuse to individuals into one. We also know that most fertilized ova end up miscarrying well before reaching a level of maturity capable of living outside the womb. Following this logic, one theologian mused, uncomfortably, that if human personhood began at conception, the majority of heaven's population must be miscarried embryos! Well, perhaps it is so, but again, we have this intuitive sense of what "people" are, and this doesn't fit it.
We know that fertilized ova have their own genome, distinct from that of either parent, but is this decisive? Given somatic mutations, different parts of your own body have slightly different genomes, and on the other hand, we don't normally say that identical twins are really the same person in two bodies just because their genomes are (somatic mutations aside) identical. I don't think that any of the scientific arguments that an early-stage embryo is more like a baby that's already been born, than it is like any of myriad body cells, is particularly compelling.
As for biblical arguments, it seems to me that as a sola scriptura Protestant, you're in a somewhat awkward position. The post-apostolic fathers opposed both abortion and infanticide, but as far as I can tell the New Testament itself mentions neither. Given that the Romans practiced both, and distinguished both from murder (which was illegal and regarded as wrong), one might expect the New Testament writings to make it clear that the society in which their audience lived was wrong, and abortion was murder, if the New Testament writers thought that it actually was.
Likewise, Exodus 21:22-25 is at least ambiguous: does "if any lasting harm follows" apply to harm to the mother, or to the unborn child? Given that fathers, under the Mosaic law, had the right to sell their children (to say nothing of commanding their labor), the punishment prescribed (a fine) seems to imply that causing a miscarriage is a violation of property rights, not the destruction of a human life, with additional punishments prescribed if the mother suffers personal injury as opposed to the family's financial injury.
If your moral anchor has secured you to some absolutely sure position on this issue, I suspect that your moral anchor cannot be simply the Bible; it must be some particular intepretative tradition that you've conflated with the actual Bible.
By the way, if you were in Kaitlyn's shoes, you would have no confidence that the Bible was the word of God, or that Jesus Christ was available to save, or, I suspect, that the Bible condemned abortion as murder. So I think in her position you would be rather slow to cry out to God for forgiveness.
"Kaitlyn. I appreciate your honesty. However, this is in essence what you are saying, "I want a German in which no one wants to kill Jews as apposed to making it illegal and having them killed in very dangerous environments. I want to keep Jews alive in terms of my personal life and have them murdered in terms of how I vote." Nice."
This is nothing like what she is saying. You are putting words in her mouth to further your own objective, which is to try to control the actions of people who have a different standard of morals than you.
Just because you don't have the mental capacity to form your own morals based on love for your fellow man, doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't either.
Many people outside of the realm of christianity have a moral code just as strong if not stronger as those within christianity.
If anything, I feel that it is a more powerful moral anchor knowing that what we do in this life affects us directly in this life, rather than living our lives according to what may or may not happen after we die.
At least with my moral code, it's a personal experience that I can see directly reflected in the way people treat me.
I see many theists act the way they do not for the sake of their fellow man, but out of fear of repercussions in the afterlife.
Which is better?
What direction does the Bible provide on this moral question?
If you lived in Nazi Germany and were asked by SS officers about the whereabouts of some Jews in hiding, and you knew where they were, would you lie to the Nazis or tell them what they want to know?
Goodness! I had no idea Kaitlyn wanted to kill the Jews! For shame on you, vile sinner. No doubt your atheism has lead you to such a repugnant desire, Just as Ben Stein said it would! when he claimed in his movie Expelled that planned parenthood is full of Nazis as a result of the theory of evolution, I thought him a fool. Only now do I see it is I who have been the fool! PRAISE HIS NAME FOR SHOWING ME THE WAY AND THE LIGHT.
Today I am a changed man! I resolve forevermore to preach the good word of the Bible that everyone in the world is a horrible monster, but fortunately can escape our just punishment for being made so, and if anyone tries to argue, Ill just tell them they'll believe it when they believe it, or when its too late! Either way I get to walk away knowing Im right about everything in the world, because I'm so humble, just like my millionaire role model! Praise you Brother Ray!
Ray said:
"I want a German in which no one wants to kill Jews
Hmm, there are germans with Jews inside them!?
Please don't publish this comment,
just consider correcting your typo (I do the same typo also quite often).
you wrote "I want a German in which no one wants ..."
while you wanted to write
"I want a Germany in which no one wants ..."
Yes, Ray, the god of your bible provides such a great moral guide.
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
(Leviticus 25:44)
"Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your "God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death." (Deuteronomy 17:2-5)
"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7)
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment." (Exodus 21:7-11)
WOW RAY, GREAT MORAL COMPASS YOUR GOD PROVIDES.
Gotta love Godwin's law.
Thank you, Ray, for taking the time to respond to some of my concerns. I'm probably the first and only atheist to ask you about theological problems I have. :)
You wrote:
"I want a German[y] in which no one wants to kill Jews as apposed to making it illegal and having them killed in very dangerous environments. I want to keep Jews alive in terms of my personal life and have them murdered in terms of how I vote." Nice.
This is kind of a touchy subject for me since most of my extended family were killed in the holocaust. I'm just grateful my parents were able to flee to America.
I didn't mean or think I was saying something that could be taken to mean I supported the holocaust. I'm sorry.
In one sense, you may be right about not having a soul
That's what I want your opinion on most. I really like playing the what-if game. So assuming you're right and God exists and you can feel His presence, what stops me from seeing God too?
I understand your idea that perhaps atheists say they don't believe in God because we just like living in sin. Likewise, you postulate that we say there's no God even though secretly we believe in Him. However, I know myself fairly well, and I'm rather convinced that's not the case with me.
Which leads me to think perhaps I don't have a soul while maybe you and other theists do. I cannot think of any way to disprove (or prove) this notion, but it's one solution that bridges what you say with how I feel, assuming you're correct.
Does the Bible say anything about people who are the product of man rather than God's gift of conception? Similarly, for most of human history, many if not most births ended up with the death of the child. If this is God's will, could it be modern medicine is circumventing God's will and we're keeping humans alive that God wouldn't want alive anyway due to a lack of a soul?
After all, the rates of atheism increase as medical technology becomes increasingly advanced, and we are more and more raising children that naturally wouldn't have lived past childbirth anyway.
Could modern science be circumventing God's plan?
Atheism has no moral anchor.
I agree. Most of my morality come from philosophy and empathy.
So Kaitlyn, where is your conscience?
I don't know. I used to equate my empathy with my conscience, but perhaps my empathy is just empathy and I'm without conscience.
Rather, what I mean is that I can teach a dog that jumping on people is bad, but it doesn't mean the dog has a conscience.
Likewise, perhaps it's possible that I have learned that I should treat others and I would like to be treated, and so it appears that I have some kind of moral grounding. However, my "conscience" could be more of a dedication to a philosophical ideal than some kind of intuitive knowledge.
In other words, conscience is so ill-defined, I'm not sure if I have a conscience in the way that you might define conscience.
Once you know His mercy, and once you let His love into your cold heart, you will be horrified that any human being could sink so low as to advocate the killed of children in the womb.
I don't think I advocate murdering children in the womb. But when you put it that way, my position does sound heartless though. I'm sorry if I have offended you.
I promise I won't talk about abortion again in the comment section of your blog.
- Kaitlyn.
PS: Thanks again for taking the time to address my thoughts and concerns. I really do appreciate you taking the time to address some of my ideas as I do other comment posters on this blog.
Ray, you are foul. Shame on you.
Ray, I think you mean "Germany" instead of "German"
Illustrations using Hitler and Nazi Germany are difficult to stomach. I find myself wishing that no argument would have to reference either to prove the point of evil. However, I can't think of a clearer example in modern history.
The sad thing is that some now have seared their conscience so much that these illustrations no longer work. You hear people sometimes argue that Hitler wasn't so bad or that the German society was just doing what it thought was right at the time. This is an example of the bankruptcy of post-modernism.
I predict that someone on this blog will try to rebut your illustration for this reason.
Really? Nazis...so quickly?
I'd like to live in a world where stupidity is nearly eliminated - but I'm not ready to make stupidity illegal.
Right Ray
Lets look at this a little and see if we can make any sense from it.
As an atheist you say I have no moral absolutes – there is no absolute right or wrong!
But I know right from wrong – I know murder is wrong and I didn’t need the 10 commandments to tell me that.
More importantly, I think that my moral position (the atheist moral position) is superior to yours:
I believe murder is wrong – I really believe that – its not because I think that God will condemn me to hell its because I believe it to be wrong. Even if someone told me it was right I would not agree – I have my own moral absolutes, most of which I share with the vast majority of the world, Christian or not. But the main reason that I think my position is superior is that I think this is my only chance – I can’t mess up – If I did kill someone the chances are that I would end up in prison for the rest of my life – the rest of my existence. You, however…. You think that your mortal life on this earth is insignificant compared with the eternity you will spend with God.
And that’s the problem:
What you do on earth doesn’t matter! Yes, I know all the rubbish about the 10 commandments and God’s law but what does that matter? In your worldview all sins are alike. They’re all as bad as each other! If I’ve lusted then I may as well have murdered - indeed, if I’ve lusted I may as well get on and murder as well – they’re both as bad to God – I know this because you have told us it on numerous occasions.
In fact its worse than that:
People say to you: ‘but God’s law is so strict how can any human adhere to it?’
And you say: ‘you can’t. No one can, not even Ray Comfort, messenger from God. But there is a way to save your self. – you can trust in Jesus Christ and allow him into your heart and then he will pay the price for your sins and you may go to heaven – the only unforgivable sin is not believing in God.’
‘Woah!!’ they say ‘I can have my sins forgiven and spend eternity in heaven with God?’
‘Yep!’ you reply.
Well, by definition, if we are to spend eternity with God then our time on earth as a percentage of eternity is absolutely nothing. Any punishment we receive on earth amounts, therefore, to nothing. Zilch. Zero!! There are, in mathematical terms, no earthly consequences whatsoever for our behaviour. Therefore, as long as we accept Jesus into our hearts and go to heaven none of our previous sinning has any consequence.
I can murder and suffer NO consequence as long as I repent and accept Jesus – This, Ray, is the moral ‘absolute’ you preach.
Murderers can spend eternity in heaven whilst if their victims live a relatively good non-murdering life but do not believe in God they will suffer eternal torment in Hell.
Ray, I think I’ll stick to my own morals – they knock yours into a cocked hat!!
Just when you think it can’t get any worse …… it does! My morals are a human invention. Weather God, the tooth fairy, Odin, Mithras or unicorns exist my moral objection to murder will remain. However your moral absolutes are dependant on God – If God was proven not to exist you would have no morals?
Once again, Ray old bean, I think my moral position trumps yours.
I’ve raised this dilemma perhaps 5 times this week now and you have been unable to give me an answer because either:
a) You actually care not one jot about my salvation (probably because I don’t contribute to your exceedingly comfortable lifestyle)
b) You don’t know the answer
c) You don’t want to face the consequences of an answer with respect to your beliefs
So come on Ray. Let me know what you think to this – I’m genuinely interested!
Phil
p.s. Terry, I’d appreciate it if you kept your sycophantic, brown-stained nose out of this – your opinion on anything is worthless and serves only to denigrate Ray’s already weak position.
Ray yet again you have it so very wrong and misconstrued.
Such an epic level of fail on your part it needs to be a miniseries.
A question for the Christians here :
Assmuing that contraception and abortion were done away with,are you going to adopt any of these unwanted children. Make sure hey are raised, fed,educated,clothed etc etc...
You want to feel morally superior to everyone and say how you cannot do this or that, well time to walk the walk. Adopt a crack baby, adopt a child that resulted from rape, adopt a child from an unwed teenage mother. Empty out the orphanages and make sure that if the woman that is going to the clinic to get an abortion you sign a legally binding document that you will take repsonsibility for raising the child.
Ray,
Since you consider abortion a holocaust we can expect you to get on board promoting comprehensive sex ed., available birth control, universal health care and open and honest discussion of human sexuality.
According to the World Health Org. countries with very restrictive abortion laws don't have lower rates of abortion. You can check their website for #'s and methodology.
If you want to reduce abortion, the steps in paragraph 1 along with living wages and reducing the concentration of wealth in fewer hands have proven effective.
Repressing sexuality can lead to sexual disfunction, unprotected sex, pregnancy, std's and sex freaks. Abstinence works, until it doesn't.
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
Proverbs 14:12
No Ray... That wasn't the essence of what she said.
"I want a German in which no one wants to kill Jews as apposed to making it illegal and having them killed in very dangerous environments. I want to keep Jews alive in terms of my personal life and have them murdered in terms of how I vote."
First of all. This makes absolutely no sense. Even if the sentences were constructed properly, it makes no sense at all. "having them killed in very dangerous environments..." What are you getting at?
I don't know much about Kaitlyn, but she seems to genuinely want a civil argument here. She goes out of her way to remain open and never approaches a rant.
The best you can do in reply is to dismiss her, tell her she probably doesn't have a soul. You then have the nerve to ask her where her conscience is. How dare you be so callous. Have you been reading her posts? You claim that you preach in the manner of Christ. Are you saying that Jesus, used infantile sarcasm and insults to gather his flock? That is what you do. You are so mean.
I am horrified. With each new post, you seem to be unraveling further, making less and less sense and becoming more ill-tempered and actually crossing over the "boundaries of Christian civility" that you warn against in your blog's guidelines.
Whatever happened to:
Blessed are the meek,
for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called children of God??????
For someone who goes on and on about Jesus, you certainly walk a disparate path.
Wow.
I don't care what snipes any atheist comes up with, this is an awesome post, Ray.
So, Ray. You claim atheism has no absolute right or wrong. I agree with that in principle. However, your claim is supposedly compared to Christianity. Are you claiming it has an absolute right and wrong ? If so, please tell me whether these things are right or wrong:
1. Genocide.
2. Slavery.
There's plenty more I'm interested in, but those two will be good to start. So, based on your absolute morals, are they right or wrong ? Feel free to guess where I'm going with this, and answer my next question before I need to ask it...
To Philg,
During "Christian Ed" (Which was one of my classes at High School, I went to a Christian School in Australia MANY years ago), my Christian Ed teacher told me that it's much better to murder someone than to commit suicide because if you murder someone you can always get forgiveness if you ask Jesus and repent. But if you kill yourself, you can never ask forgiveness....
Sooo... comparing the right for abortion to the holocaust eh?
As anyone who finished highschool will be able to tell you, there are quite a few differences.
Jews are sentient, thinking individuals, embryos are not.
Jews feel pain and have desires, embryos do not.
The holocaust aimed for 100% extermination of jews, abortion will obviously not kill 100% of embryos.
The holocaust created widespread suffering and unparalleled suffering. A right to abortion does not.
Not killing a jew will result in a happy family, while not removing an embryo will potentially lead to a very depressed family.
Those are of course the most obviously glaring differences, there are several thousand others, that any highschooler should be able to point out to you. Guess we can add "History" to the "List of things Ray Comfort knows nothing about", it's getting quite long allready.
Pathetic post, Ray!
If a fetus cannot be separated from the mother without causing it to die, any life it has is not completely its own. Hence in making a decision before that time, a woman is making medical decisions for her health or her family.
Now, nobody likes abortion (frankly there aren't really any surgeries or medical procedures I'm aware of that are supposed to feel good). But if we allow the church to make laws restricting women from making these choices, then we are living in a theocracy. Likewise if we allow the government to do the same thing, we'd be living under tyranny. It is better to leave the decision up to mothers, husbands, doctors, and families than to try to take it away from them by force through the use of civil law. If Christians want reform they have a duty to educate and motivate people towards it positively, not deter people through punishment.
(This is to say nothing of the fact that banning abortion legally will not cause it to stop, only punish women by deregulating it and moving it underground. The idea is fundamentally impractical, although that's another matter.)
Lastly, Ray should be careful before bringing up Hitler. Der Fuhrer, to say nothing of the mobs that followed him, was a Christian and justified his actions through the Bible. If he's going to pick someone as a bad example, he ought to pick someone whose philosophy is as different from his own as possible.
That embryos are equally human depends on the assumption that there's a clear, sharp dividing line between a human individual and a single human cell, and on the assumption that you've drawn that line correctly.
If I may suggest, I do not believe that this is an accurate viewpoint from which to make a distinction. The embryonic stage does not begin until the forming entity has become multicellular, with various cells having differentiated for specific formations. While I cannot rationally consider a collection of undifferentiated cells with no capacity for thought or sensation of any kind, such as those found in a blastocyst or a zygote, to be equivalent to a fully developed human individual, I can at least appreciate the assertion that the embryonic state represents a human individual, and I can even agree that there is a point where an embryo is functionally equivalent to a human individual, even if I am personally unable to distinguish the specific point in embryonic development -- whether this is the very beginning, or at some time when development is underway -- where this equivalence should be established.
Hmm, there are germans with Jews inside them!?
As any offspring of a Jewish female is considered Jewish, any pregnant Jewish German female human would be a German with a Jew inside of her.
The Christians on the former Ray's Comfort Blog ( renamed Atheist Central ) said: A M E N !!!
We see this problem with atheists day in and day out. One of the reasons that atheists will not acknowledge the Almighty God is the 'love' for sin in their lives!
Without God, there is no need to worry about the repercussions for an abortion (murder), homosexuality, robbery, lies, ..etc.. in their lives.
They 'stick their heads in the sand', and ignore His 10 commandents. Ignore the Salvation from Jesus Christ's sacrifice.
These deluded individuals actually 'think' they can over come death, and be reborn perhaps billions of years later, or evolve into a higher form of life.
Oozing along for a 'big bang'? :)
Where is the power source for this?
Why can't we create life>? hmmm??
Darwin, & Dick Dawkins will not help you! They are mortals like you and I. Nothing special!
Get a LIFE! Watch the HBKS video while you are still 'alive'. Time is quickly running out for you atheists!
You've been warned repeatedly, and there will be no excuse for it on Judgement Day! The Truth will prevail in His court of justice!
... "the wages of sin is death"
"They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil". (Judges 5:30)
The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15)
All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9)
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2)
"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie. That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." 2 Thessalonians 11-13
@ Iago, you said "Assmuing that contraception and abortion were done away with,are you going to adopt any of these unwanted children"
I have news for you, I know plenty of Christians who have adopted! I adopted 17 years ago, and soon the child will be joining the military service.
Ever heard of Feed the Children?
I give to that, Disabled American Veterans, and loads of others over the years thru Combine Federal Campaign (CFC).
Christians feel a morale obligation to give, and share!
We do not say we are better than atheists, we are 'saved'. You could have the same thing Iago!
Watch the HBKS video, and Ray and Kirk will point you in the right direction! Check out Ray's website 'livingwaters' for the "Feed the Children" hyperlink. God Speed!
Praying for you atheist!
All you folks that are in favor of abortion, please contact your Mother and thank her for giving birth to you.
Matt D. said...
Really? Nazis...so quickly?
I'd like to live in a world where stupidity is nearly eliminated - but I'm not ready to make stupidity illegal.
I guess it's a good thing stupidity isn't illegal your post would have gotten you 5 to 10.
You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle;...
How can the Bible even talk about "two kinds" of cattle when Ray assures us there's only "Cow" species (kind)?
you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed,
Again, Ray tells us "Tree" is a single species so I'd have to assume "Plant" is also a single species.
Are you sure you're quoting the right bible here? I think you must have one of those idolatry bibles that get everything wrong.
Wow Terry...
You adopted someone and raised them for 17 years and you can only refer to them as "the child."
Nice....
It's not to late. Get your head out of your bowels and read some real books, learn something. Stop being so terrified of those imaginary demons in your head.
And give "the child" a proper name.
alcari said...
Jews are sentient, thinking individuals, embryos are not.
That's not issue. The question is are they alive and are they human. The answers are 'Yes' and 'Yes,' and to justify murder proves the Bible when it says that "the human heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked." (Jer 17:9)
Jews feel pain and have desires, embryos do not.
How do you know? Are you God?
It's been proven that at some point they feel incredible pain before full term.
The holocaust aimed for 100% extermination of Jews, abortion will obviously not kill 100% of embryos.
Oh Ok, Planned Unparenthood only wants to murder 1.3 million a year (and a little more the next year for a profit increase). But hey now, that's much better then 100%of the babies conceived. Who else should we murder off a little bit at a time. Maybe some evolutionists would like to tell me which race isn’t evolved enough, who we can define as less than fully human. It's been done before and we've even put them in zoos.
Your other comments were as ignorant and evil as the few I addressed. I know it might not do much good to say but please Repent.
German Mike said:
Please don't publish this comment,
just consider correcting your typo (I do the same typo also quite often).
you wrote "I want a German in which no one wants ..."
while you wanted to write
"I want a Germany in which no one wants ..."
Ray, please don't publish this comment, but could you tell German Mike that my social security numbers is 447329837. Thanks.
forgiven37 said:
I guess it's a good thing stupidity isn't illegal your post would have gotten you 5 to 10.
Oh yeah? You smell like...like...yucky!
@terry:
"We see this problem with atheists day in and day out. One of the reasons that atheists will not acknowledge the Almighty God is the 'love' for sin in their lives!"
Where did you get this? Athiests don't sin any more than christians do. in fact, look at prison populations, there are disporportionately LESS athiests in prison then there are christians.
"Without God, there is no need to worry about the repercussions for an abortion (murder), homosexuality, robbery, lies, ..etc.. in their lives."
Murder is bad for society whether your atheist or not. You assume way too much. Show me any data that shows that there are more atheist murderers than theistic murderers, or more abortions done by atheists, or any crime for that matter.
"They 'stick their heads in the sand', and ignore His 10 commandents. Ignore the Salvation from Jesus Christ's sacrifice."
Really? i don't steal, lie, murder, covet my neighbors wife, i honor my mother and my father, i don't worship any graven image, i have no gods, therefore i can have no other gods before yahweh, i don't covet, i don't work on saturday OR sunday.
"These deluded individuals actually 'think' they can over come death, and be reborn perhaps billions of years later, or evolve into a higher form of life."
no, christians are the ones that think they can overcome death through everlasting life. you're confusing atheists with people that believe in reincarnation.
"Oozing along for a 'big bang'? :)
Where is the power source for this?
Why can't we create life>? hmmm??
Darwin, & Dick Dawkins will not help you! They are mortals like you and I. Nothing special!"
the power source for the big bang? there are a couple of interesting theories, but honestly, i can't say i know, but i'm not about to look to a superstitious being from a 2 thousand year old book to explain something that could have a possible explanation within the realm of the natural world.
"Get a LIFE! Watch the HBKS video while you are still 'alive'. Time is quickly running out for you atheists!
You've been warned repeatedly, and there will be no excuse for it on Judgement Day! The Truth will prevail in His court of justice!
... "the wages of sin is death""
the only things certain in life are death and taxes.
seriously, if you're really interested in learning about physics and biology, there are a ton of excellent resources available. however, if you're going to be a bible-thumper, don't try to argue scientific principles that you don't understand.
"Blogger keywesthaven1@msn.com (Terry) said...
These deluded individuals actually 'think' they can over come death, and be reborn perhaps billions of years later, or evolve into a higher form of life."
No, they don't. The rebirth and eternal life thing is your gig remember?
"Blogger ethan said...
It's been proven that at some point they feel incredible pain before full term. "
How do you know? Are you God?
@ethan--
alcari said...
Jews are sentient, thinking individuals, embryos are not.
That's not issue. The question is are they alive and are they human. The answers are 'Yes' and 'Yes,' and to justify murder proves the Bible when it says that "the human heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked." (Jer 17:9)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OK, so according to you, embryos are human. So let me ask you a question that Ray refused to answer:
If you were in a fertility clinic and a fire broke out, and you could rescue either a trapped, screaming, terrified 2-year-old girl or a tray with 1000 2-week-old embryos in it--but not both--which would you choose? One of the two will burn; you can only rescue one.
So--If 2-week-old embryos are fully human like you say they are, would you rescue them and let the screaming 2-year-old girl burn alive?
Terry,
It's OK. I didn't believe in reincarnation in my last life either.
@ Andrew,
Thank you for responding. I like to address this statement of yours:
"Really? i don't steal, lie, murder, covet my neighbors wife, i honor my mother and my father, i don't worship any graven image, i have no gods, therefore i can have no other gods before yahweh, i don't covet, i don't work on saturday OR sunday."
Let me get this straight, you have never stolen anything ( even something small ? ), you have never lusted for a woman ???
Jesus said "anyone who has lusted for a woman has committed adultery in his heart"
What I am talking about is look at a woman and desire her! I know you have, as all men have done this! Therefore, you are guilty as the rest of us of 'breaking the 10 commandments'.
Let's set the record straight! Sin came into the world when Adam and Eve disobeyed God and partook of the tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil in the Garden of Eden.
The LAW ( 10 commandments ) leaves us all guilty! Therefore, the New Testament shows how Jesus Christ, the Messiah for the world, paid the price for our sins on the cross!
The prophecies on my website will tell you the rest of the story.
The only WAY to get into heaven is thru Jesus Christ.
In His Love, Terry
I challenge you to take the 'Good Person' test at wayofthemaster!
@ Mr Smith ( no profile )
You obviously did not read the comment, as I never said "eternal life" thru evolving!
The "rebirth" is on a spiritual level with Jesus Christ. You know that very well, but you would rather try to deceive the readers that come to this blog ...atheist!
atheism claims a 'nothingness' after this life. MAYBE not! lol
atheism claims 'space clams' may
have seeded this plant from afar,
MAYBE not! ha ha ha Ask Dick! ;)
atheism claims alot, but can never explain with 'facts' the beginning of it all.
What caused 'big bang'? hmmm???
where did the 'dense matter' come from ? where did the 'ooze' come from? why can't we replicate 'life' in the lab from scratch ?
I tell you what science has done to create life! Take a fruit fly, manipulate the DNA and add a extra pair of wings! The fruit fly lives a few minutes, and spins out of control in flight until it dies!
That's exactly what will happen to atheism & evolution on Judgement Day! It will send you straight to Hell ... matie! :)
Have a NICE day! Watch HBKS video!
Praying for your immortal soul.
@ Andrew IRT: Get a CLUE!
you said "seriously, if you're really interested in learning about physics and biology, there are a ton of excellent resources available"
FYI, I have a degree in science. The THEORY of evolution has nothing to do with physics and biology. In fact, both of these sciences show that our bodies and the world around us is very complex and intricate!
evolution is nothing more than a
bad 'guess' about it. It is NOT a science as nothing has been proven by 'hard evidence'.
Let me know if you find that 'missing link' as no one has found it for thousands of years!
God Bless! Hope you wake up and smell the reality of GOD.
The theory of evolution of the Coca Cola can. This story will give you a 'Big Bang'!!! :)
"Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on its surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky, and formed itself into the words "Coca Cola 12 fluid ounces."
Of course, my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker.
If it is designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened by chance or accident, is to move into an intellectual free zone" ...excerpt from livingwaters
website.
Welcome!!! to atheist remarks at Atheist Central Food Blog!
Watch HBKS video on my website!!!
God Bless! Praying for you "A"s!
baldyslaphead said: So don't you dare preach morality and then denounce atheists for moral relativism; you've repeatedly demonstrated how you pick and choose which of God's laws you follow.
Bravo! Well said Baldy!
Terry, Terry, Terry...
What I am talking about is look at a woman and desire her! I know you have, as all men have done this!
Even gay ones? Fail.
atheism claims 'space clams' may
have seeded this plant from afar,
MAYBE not! ha ha ha Ask Dick! ;)
You've been corrected on this many times before. Stop repeating it. You're lying. Very un-Jesus-like.
FYI, I have a degree in science. The THEORY of evolution has nothing to do with physics and biology. In fact, both of these sciences show that our bodies and the world around us is very complex and intricate!
Universities don't award degrees in "science". Which scientific field do you have a degree in and where from? Either you need to ask for your money back, or they need to ask for their degree back.
evolution is nothing more than a
bad 'guess' about it. It is NOT a science as nothing has been proven by 'hard evidence'.
FAIL
The theory of evolution of the Coca Cola can. This story will give you a 'Big Bang'!!! :)
"Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on its surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky, and formed itself into the words "Coca Cola 12 fluid ounces."
Of course, my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker.
If it is designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened by chance or accident, is to move into an intellectual free zone"
Guess what? Coke cans don't reproduce themselves so it is ridiculous to think they could have come about through evolution. See how they really aren't that similar to biological organisms? Use your "science" degree!
This analogy fails more miserably than most of Ray's analogies.
Go eat a banana, Terry.
"Blogger keywesthaven1@msn.com (Terry) said...
@ Mr Smith ( no profile )
You obviously did not read the comment, as I never said "eternal life" thru evolving!
The "rebirth" is on a spiritual level with Jesus Christ. You know that very well, but you would rather try to deceive the readers that come to this blog ...atheist!"
You said "overcome death". If that doesn't mean immortality, then what does it mean?
"atheism claims a 'nothingness' after this life. MAYBE not! lol
atheism claims 'space clams' may
have seeded this plant from afar,
MAYBE not! ha ha ha Ask Dick! ;)
atheism claims alot, but can never explain with 'facts' the beginning of it all."
Atheism is the the lack of belief in gods. That's it. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make that to you.
"Watch HBKS video!"
Seen it. It wasn't the best comedy I'd ever seen, but still funny.
"FYI, I have a degree in science."
Which one?
The theory of evolution of the Coca Cola can. This story will give you a 'Big Bang'!!! :)
Your representation is a "strawman" argument, which is a logical fallacy.
Additionally, can you please provide a reference for your previous claim that Charles Darwin was "high" on "hash" during his voyage on the HMS Beagle?
Ray,
You said-
“Many of you aren’t seeking the truth. You prefer to believe a lie because you love your sins. It’s as simple as that.”
The Bible states-
The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
The LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them."
“I am about to destroy them with the earth.”
All the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened, The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.
The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.
Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.
How can this possibly be the Truth™?
The only people who accept this tall tale as truth are those who are convinced of the “inerrancy” of the bible, and accept it as the “word of God” through divine revelation. The explanations of this event are offered by individuals and groups who state that “No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.”
This, of course flies in the face of modern geology, and its sub-disciplines of earth science; geochemistry, geophysics, glaciology, paleoclimatology, paleontology and other scientific disciplines which utilize the scientific method to analyze the geology of the earth. The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community.
There is thorough and convincing refutation of all flood mechanisms advanced by creationists, including the hydroplate hypothesis, runaway subduction, vapor canopy, comet strikes and so on, clearly showing their inaccuracies and physical impossibilities. There is also an enormous amount of physical evidence indicating the absence of any global flood as described in the Bible.
Two hundred years ago, one could have accepted the Genesis account of a global flood, but today, given what we know and what we have learned, it is simply irrational to see it as anything more than a myth.
To continue to accept the Bible as inerrant requires, as Kirk Cameron suggested, and apparently Ray Comfort endorses, would require us to “circumnavigate the intellect”. In other words, don’t think.
This is the third day I have requested someone to provide credible, physical evidence to support the reality of the biblical Noah story.
The only response I have received was from Terri, who, after ridiculously demanding that I include chapter and verse when I quote the story of Noah from the Bible, merely directed me to a blog he had written, which, instead of providing any factual evidence of a global flood, when analyzed, actually provided evidence that there was no global flood.
If I continue to receive nothing to validate the creationist claims of a global flood, I must assume that the only basis on which you, and other True Christians™ accept bible inerrancy is founded on irrational, unfounded beliefs, blind faith, and worthless dogma, and that Ray Comfort is a false teacher, and a fraud.
@terry
Craig Venter can create life. You could try to google Venter and mycoplasma, but you won't understand it anyway...
There are some restrictions to de-novo-creation of organisms but the two most important are: time and money.
Oh, and fruit flies with an extra pair of wings where the halteres have been are actually viable, as are many other genetically modified flies.
BIBLE MEDITATION:
“Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.”
1 John 5:1
DEVOTIONAL THOUGHT:
What is salvation? It's not a creed. You say, “Well, I believe the plan of salvation.” You can believe the plan of salvation and go straight to hell. You’re not saved by the plan of salvation; you’re saved by the Man of salvation. Salvation is not a creed. It’s not a code. You say, “Well, I believe if you live right, you’ll go to heaven.” If you could be saved by living right then Calvary was a blunder. It’s not a cause. You say, “I’m a member of a good, fundamental, Bible-believing church.” It’s not any of these things. It’s Christ. Salvation is not believing something; it is receiving Someone. The true gospel is one that centers in Jesus Christ.
ACTION POINT:
Ask God to give you a divine opportunity to boldly share Jesus with someone today. Maybe it’s a co-worker; maybe it’s your child. Maybe it’s a stranger that sits next to you at a restaurant. Be strong and of good courage; God will go before you to prepare the way.
Love Worth Finding Ministries
@Terry
FYI, I have a degree in science.
Really? What field? I do computer science for a living. Maybe we could get together (online) and chat about our work. :)
As always, I love what you write, Terry.
- Kaitlyn
Amen, brother Terry!! Brilliantly stated. How foolish these atheists are for not realizing how horribly, disgustingly sinful we all are. Its all so obvious to those that are not so lost that they love their sin and lies more than God who gave them their horrible worthless lives!!!
Ill try to make this simple as I can for all you atheists out there clinging to your love of hating what you pretend not to believe in with a quick test:
Ever liked a person? That's Lust, which is the same as adultery! Commandment Broken!
Ever not liked a person? That's Wrath, which is the same as murder! Commandment Broken!
Ever wanted anything in your entire life? Coveting, plain and simple (not that you'll ever acknowledge the obvious truth, lolz)! Commandment Broken!
Ever taken anything ever? All property is theft, stealing! Commandment Broken!
Ever said anything ever? Can you know 100% it truth? Are you God? No? Then its as good as Lying, which is exactly what "bearing false witness" means in proper context! (duh) Commandment Broken!
Can I make it any simpler for you fools? Why don't you pray to your Space Clams that Dickie Dawkie said himself on film that he completely believes in. Oh that's right, Space Clams Don't Exist, and are a False God! Commandment Broken!!!
So cling to your "theory" of Evil-You-tion that has no proof or facts or observable, testable or falsifiable hypotheses, not even a single piece of evidence that would prove iit true, like a fossil mermaid or centaur, and pretend it has anything to do with real science. Don't you see how the simple fact that you don't know the precise conditions of pre-life Earth at the present moment prove you never ever ever will! (Heres a hint though, Genesis 1:1)
Come to God and beg for His forgiveness for being the way He made you before its too late!!!
P.S. Terry, what college did you go to that offers that "Degree in Science?" I just got this lousy Batchelor of Fine Arts, but Degree in Science just sounds awesome!
Terry, I hope you dion't take this wrong, coming from a brother in Christ the Lord, but are you on any medication?
You worry me brother, and I'm praying that it's just that I don't get your sense of humour.
Mr. "baldyslaphead"(where in the world did you get such a name??)
Would you please verify these so-called lies you falsely accuse(commandment #9) Ray of.
Ray is the first person to admit he isn't perfect (if you really listened to his teaching you would know that), but I know he would never deliberately lie. It goes against everything he teaches.
I will check back later to see what you can come up with. And I want it spelled out clearly. No more false accusations. You people just get on the same band-wagon and repeat the same old garbage, with no proof for what you are saying.
Marcia
Steven j said "As for biblical arguments, it seems to me that as a sola scriptura Protestant, you're in a somewhat awkward position. The post-apostolic fathers opposed both abortion and infanticide, but as far as I can tell the New Testament itself mentions neither. Given that the Romans practiced both, and distinguished both from murder (which was illegal and regarded as wrong), one might expect the New Testament writings to make it clear that the society in which their audience lived was wrong, and abortion was murder, if the New Testament writers thought that it actually was.
Likewise, Exodus 21:22-25 is at least ambiguous: does "if any lasting harm follows" apply to harm to the mother, or to the unborn child? Given that fathers, under the Mosaic law, had the right to sell their children (to say nothing of commanding their labor), the punishment prescribed (a fine) seems to imply that causing a miscarriage is a violation of property rights, not the destruction of a human life, with additional punishments prescribed if the mother suffers personal injury as opposed to the family's financial injury."
Only a very superficial understanding of the Bible could lead to the conclusion that it does not condemn abortion. The Bible tells us that God created us all in His image, knows us intimately (can even number the hairs on our head) and did weave us in our mothers womb. His relationship with us does not start at our birth but at the very beginning of the life He creates.
In Exodus 21:22 the word which is translated as “miscarriage” in some translations is the Hebrew word “yasa”. This is used to refer to normal childbirth in Genesis 15:4, Genesis 25, Genesis 26, Jeremiah 1 and Isaiah 39:7. It is used to refer to stillbirth (not miscarriage) in Numbers 12:12. It is not used to refer to miscarriage. Therefore a literal understanding of the passage is that if premature birth occurs with no harm to the baby a fine is imposed BUT if the baby should be harmed then the punishment should fit the crime (a fine would not be sufficient).
Finally I have not heard a logical argument for an atheistic absolute moral framework. Yet within all of us there seems to be knowledge of absolutes – for instance we would all agree that cannibalism is wrong. Where do you think this comes from? John Dewey (1859-1952), co-author and signer of the Humanist Manifesto in 1933, declared, "There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes."
"FYI, I have a degree in science"
Really? I was unaware that there were degrees for "science" in general. can i get a PhD in "Science?"
Or are you referring to an AS, or a BS? Masters?
In exactly what field is your degree? And from which college or university did you study and obtain this degree?
"FYI, I have a degree in science. The THEORY of evolution has nothing to do with physics and biology. In fact, both of these sciences show that our bodies and the world around us is very complex and intricate!"
i agree that it has nothing to do with physics, so why do creationists such as yourself argue against evolution by using examples like the big bang, which is a theory of physics.
... did you really just say that evolution has nothing to do with biology???
Evolution is the CORNERSTONE of biology.
Wow, now i'm REALLY interested to hear about your "science" degree.
Gotta love the Comfort thought process:
"Hmmm. Somebody has consistently been courteous and respectful in expressing her honest disagreement with my beliefs. What is the most appropriate way to respond with love and respect? I know! I'll compare her to NAZIS! Jesus LOVES slander, AND taking advantage of unthinkable human tragedy to advance a personal agenda!"
Ick.
"What I am talking about is look at a woman and desire her! I know you have, as all men have done this! Therefore, you are guilty as the rest of us of 'breaking the 10 commandments'."
what about eunuchs?
isn't one of the creationist arguments about being all-knowing? you can't say that ALL MEN lust after women, because you can't know what's in the hearts of ALL MEN.
Terry: "FYI, I have a degree in science."
We all know that's a lie, right? :)
This week's promise:
God is merciful to us!
Does God treat you the way you deserve?
Praise the Lord, I tell myself; with my whole heart, I will praise his holy name. Praise the Lord, I tell myself, and never forget the good things he does for me. He forgives all my sins and heals all my diseases. He ransoms me from death and surrounds me with love and tender mercies. He fills my life with good things.
My youth is renewed like the eagle's! The Lord gives righteousness and justice to all who are treated unfairly.
He revealed his character to Moses and his deeds to the people of Israel. The Lord is merciful and gracious; he is slow to anger and full of unfailing love. He will not constantly accuse us, nor remain angry forever. He has not punished us for all our sins, nor does he deal with us as we desire.
For his unfailing love toward those who love him is as great as the height of the heavens above the earth. He has removed our rebellious acts as far away from us as the east is from the west.
Psalm 103:1-12 NLT
Iago,
You said:
"Assmuing that contraception and abortion were done away with,are you going to adopt any of these unwanted children. Make sure hey are raised, fed,educated,clothed etc etc...
You want to feel morally superior to everyone and say how you cannot do this or that, well time to walk the walk. Adopt a crack baby, adopt a child that resulted from rape, adopt a child from an unwed teenage mother. Empty out the orphanages and make sure that if the woman that is going to the clinic to get an abortion you sign a legally binding document that you will take repsonsibility for raising the child."
Today there is an epidemic of people that are unable to have their own children. They try every way possible to conceive and give birth, and some still can't conceive, and many experience the heartache of miscarriage. Many of these people are turning to adoption for this very reason.
There are people that would love to adopt these so-called "unwanted" children if they could have the chance before they are ripped from the womb.
Most of the people that adopt these so-called "unwanted" children are Christians, not atheists. It's the people that follow God's Holy Word that desire the undesirable, not atheists.
How many have you adopted Iago????
Terry's Schools
City University
Bellevue,WA
Graduated: 1989
Student status: Alumni
Degree: Associate's Degree
Major: Arts & Sciences
Looking at their programs, (http://www.cityu.edu/programs/), i'm guessing it was the A.S. general studies.
Tell me, which class filled your total of 5 hours of natural science/math? Did you take any other science classes as your electives? If so, which ones?
While we're on the topic of morals, let's examine a common ethical dilemma.
There is a train hurtling towards 10 people stuck on a track. You can throw a switch to switch the train to another track, but doing so will send the train towards a baby trapped on that track. What do you do?
If there are moral absolutes, then there must be a right answer to this question in the eyes of God. Which is the 'morally right' thing to do? Kill the 10 to save the baby? or kill the baby to save the 10?
So terry. Where did you get your science degree from? Was it Patriot University, where Ken Hovind got his? Or did you take a special way of the master correspondence course?
I see you reproduced the wotm coke can "argument" verbatim. You are truly a mindless Christian. I bet you are proud.
But seriously. I would like to know what "university" you went to. Are the accredited? Somehow I don't think so.
I have one other thing to say to you bubba. Before I settled on my current mate, I would look upon attractive women and enjoy what I saw. You call it lust. You call it sin. I call in something programmed into the male of the species to help ensure survival.
I find it humorous how Christians are so set on upholding thought crimes like looking at a pretty lady. All these impossible rules. Keep em.
I really do enjoy those types of sins. I've never stolen anything or murdered anyone and I believe I tell a lot less lies than most of your brothers in Christ. So I'm not worried.
I'm thoroughly enjoying this life, which is the only life I have.
The way you explain things. Christianity is nothing but a racket. Everyone is a sinner so everyone needs to go through Jesus. How convenient. I still don't buy any of it.
Your entire (Christian) narrative doesn't make any sense at all. You guys just continue to make it up as you go along. Your whole premise that two people angered your God, so he condemned them for eternity and everyone who came after them for their "sin" of curiosity. God made them curious and then punished them.
Nice guy. And not only them, but everyone since. That is just foolishness.
It is only topped by the idea that he then sent Jesus to pay for all the sins. Why couldn't he have just forgiven them? Why the need to spill his "son's" blood. Silly story. Doesn't make any sense at all. Which I guess is why most Christians don't make any sense at all.
Enough about that. I'm still intrigued that you managed to get a degree in science. What field did you study and how did you manage to get through college and still not be able to write a coherent sentence. You are truly mad and a lot of fun. Don't ever change. We really enjoy you.
Dear Craig,
You said:
"Since you consider abortion a holocaust we can expect you to get on board promoting comprehensive sex ed., available birth control, universal health care and open and honest discussion of human sexuality."
I say:
Actually you have no need to expect that a "man of God" would ever promote such wrong teaching. The Bible is the source of all truth.
You said:
"According to the World Health Org. countries with very restrictive abortion laws don't have lower rates of abortion. You can check their website for #'s and methodology."
I say:
The World Health Organization is definitely not my first or last choice of information. You are very foolish to trust what they say.
You said:
"If you want to reduce abortion, the steps in paragraph 1 along with living wages and reducing the concentration of wealth in fewer hands have proven effective."
I say:
Ah, communist utopia, where all wealth is evenly distributed and everyone lives happily-ever-after.
NOT. I don't care how hard you try to balance things, as long as sinful humans live on this planet, there will be abortions and every other type of sin.
You said:
"Repressing sexuality can lead to sexual disfunction, unprotected sex, pregnancy, std's and sex freaks. Abstinence works, until it doesn't."
I say:
The fact is that you can count on one hand the number of days out of the month that a woman can even conceive. I hardly think that abstaining from relations on a handful of days a month is going to lead to "sexual dysfunction" or any of the other silly things you said.
"Jesus will save"
You said:
"To Philg,
During "Christian Ed" (Which was one of my classes at High School, I went to a Christian School in Australia MANY years ago), my Christian Ed teacher told me that it's much better to murder someone than to commit suicide because if you murder someone you can always get forgiveness if you ask Jesus and repent. But if you kill yourself, you can never ask forgiveness...."
I say:
Just as I thought...another product of false teaching!!
I find it interesting when pro-abortionists talk about bunches of cells when referencing abortion. You do realize that abortions are performed after the baby has started to develop, the heart is beating and in most cases the baby looks like a baby, head body, arms and legs. Women don't even know they are pregnant before all this happens. Please don't pretend that the baby is just a couple of cells that can only be seen with a microscope and look nothing like a human, because that is dishonest. If you want to know the facts of abortion search abort73 on google. There you can see the facts, even pictures, which people may find disturbing, however if you are going to allow the killing of babies in your country than I believe it should be mandatory or at least a moral obligation to look at the results of what you allow.
Dimensio said...
Hmm, there are germans with Jews inside them!?
As any offspring of a Jewish female is considered Jewish, any pregnant Jewish German female human would be a German with a Jew inside of her.
That was your best post ever Dimensio. Seriously.
Also, when you reply to something a blogger has posted, would you please name that person?
Thanks.
Alcari,
You said:
"Sooo... comparing the right for abortion to the holocaust eh?
As anyone who finished highschool will be able to tell you, there are quite a few differences.
Jews are sentient, thinking individuals, embryos are not.
Jews feel pain and have desires, embryos do not.
The holocaust aimed for 100% extermination of jews, abortion will obviously not kill 100% of embryos.
The holocaust created widespread suffering and unparalleled suffering. A right to abortion does not.
Not killing a jew will result in a happy family, while not removing an embryo will potentially lead to a very depressed family.
Those are of course the most obviously glaring differences, there are several thousand others, that any highschooler should be able to point out to you. Guess we can add "History" to the "List of things Ray Comfort knows nothing about", it's getting quite long allready."
I say:
How do you know that embryos don't think or experience pain? You don't have a clue! And actually, most abortions are performed on babies that are way past 2 months in the womb, making them no longer classified as an embryo (just in case you didn't finish High School). Another little fact you should know is that babies in the womb at 8 weeks have all the organs they need for life!!
One of the favorite procedures performed by these murderers today is called partial-birth abortion. Let me educate you on this subject.
The Murderer turns the full-term baby around to where it will come out feet first (so he doesn't have to look into the child's face when it's murdered). He delivers all but the head, and then proceeds to ram a pair of scissors into the child's brain at the base of it's skull (no more squirming now). Then he vacuums out the brains so he can crush the skull (making it easier to deliver the murdered baby).
No one has the "right to an abortion", of an embryo or a full-term baby.
Just because this murder takes place quietly, behind closed doors, with the okay of our judicial system (it never was a law) doesn't make it a "right".
Put that in your wee little human brain and think about it!!!
For you people that think it sounds so sterile and non-human to describe a BABY using the terms "embryo" or "fetus", you should know that EMBRYO means GROWING WITHIN and FETUS is Latin for LITTLE ONE.
So you see, these are just fancy words to describe nothing less than a precious HUMAN LIFE.
No one has the "right" to take a human life, no matter what stage of LIFE they are in, nor because of the circumstances of their conception!!!
@ Terry (Mr. credentials) IRT: Get a Clue!
FYI, I have a degree in science. The THEORY of evolution has nothing to do with physics and biology. In fact, both of these sciences show that our bodies and the world around us is very complex and intricate!
I have a degree in science. A true one, with expertise in biology, molecular genetics, microbiology, and informatics. Evolution has everything to do with biology and many other sciences. All sciences show that evolution is the best explanation for the patterns of diversity of life we see today, and that the complexity you are talking about can be attained by natural processes.
Stop pretending to be what you are not. Even if you do have a degree in science, it is obvious you barely know what you are talking about with your pretentious self-proclaiming rants. If you knew anything about science you would not jump so easily into unfounded conclusions at the mere sight of avatars, nor would you think there is such thing as witchcraft. You would also be able to establish credibilities by the logic of arguments rather than by looking at peoples profiles.
G.E.
All you folks that are in favor of abortion, please contact your Mother and thank her for giving birth to you.
If my mom had aborted me, I wouldn't know about it because I wouldn't exist therefore I wouldn't care. There would be no "me" to be angry or upset with her for doing so.
I think that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want to believe, without the fear of being insulted or ridiculed for it. I know from experience that Christians are often ridiculed from their beliefs, but honestly it doesn't do anyone any good for them to go and ridicule people back. Why do you believe in insulting people about what they believe in? I do think that it's alright for a Christian to tell someone about their beliefs in the hope that they will accept them and it will lead them to a happier life, but I do not think that it is acceptable, under any circumstances, to just outright insult what other people believe in!
captain howdy said...
If you were in a fertility clinic and a fire broke out, and you could rescue either a trapped, screaming, terrified 2-year-old girl or a tray with 1000 2-week-old embryos in it--but not both--which would you choose? One of the two will burn; you can only rescue one.
Again, an irrelevant question that's an obvious attempt to distract from the real issue. Human beings have a right to life no matter there size, or intelligence, or there dependency on others.
If you saw an anthrax bomb but only had time to toss in front of 3 young women or just leave it a room of 6 terminal cancer patients who would you choose to suffer a horrible death?
Mr Smith said...
"Blogger ethan said...
It's been proven that at some point they feel incredible pain before full term. "
How do you know? Are you God?
You should thank the Lord I'm not Him. But I am smart enough to read the research. I hope that you are too, and that it might open your eyes to a reality that you're blind of at the moment.
None but then I support birth control and sex education so that people make make choices about their bodies.
So for you Storeytwin a- How many have you adopted ?Have you protested outside a family planning clinic ? If you have did you tel the woman going there that you would be financially responsible for raising their child if they would not have an abortion ?
For you people that think it sounds so sterile and non-human to describe a BABY using the terms "embryo" or "fetus", you should know that EMBRYO means GROWING WITHIN and FETUS is Latin for LITTLE ONE.
So you see, these are just fancy words to describe nothing less than a precious HUMAN LIFE.
No one has the "right" to take a human life, no matter what stage of LIFE they are in, nor because of the circumstances of their conception!!!
That didn't stop your deity from ordering it done now did it?
As I said: the so-called "pro-life" stance taken by those who worship a baby killer is the ultimate in moral hypocrosy.
Besides, even the OT says that if a pregnant woman were to get killed during a fight, the one who killed her would die. If just her fetus died, the guy was to just pay a fine.
Don't blame atheists for devaluing human life. Your own book beat us to it.
For you people that think it sounds so sterile and non-human to describe a BABY using the terms "embryo" or "fetus", you should know that EMBRYO means GROWING WITHIN and FETUS is Latin for LITTLE ONE.
While you could be more specific in noting that "fetus" refers to a "little one" that is still in the womb, your descriptions of the etymologies of the words are correct. However, I will note that appealing to the derived meanings of terms is not a valid method of argument; that "fetus" is derived from a word that means "little one" does not demonstrate that a blastocyst -- a collection of undifferentiated cells -- is a human life even if those cells contain human DNA. You are merely arguing semantics, without demonstrating any actual science.
I find it interesting when pro-abortionists talk about bunches of cells when referencing abortion. You do realize that abortions are performed after the baby has started to develop, the heart is beating and in most cases the baby looks like a baby, head body, arms and legs.
Please explain why you use the term "pro-abortionist". What, specifically, is a "pro-abortionist"?
I feel that I should note that I made reference to a collection of undifferentiated cells only to distinguish it from a more fully developed fetus. I made mention of this only because I am familiar with a claim that a human life begins at the moment of conception, and because while I can accept that a developing fetus at some point -- possibly even at the start of fetal development, though I would personally find it more plausible to make the distinction at the earliest possible time when the developing fetus may have any semblance of neural activity -- is a human being, I am unable to rationally consider an undifferentiated blastocyst to be the same, and deserving of the same protection as human beings.
that was a bad analogy for abortion. that thing about making killing Jews illegal is just (no offense)dumb. don't you think that if they made abortion illegal desperate couples and teens would still find ways of having it done.
UnclePT replied to me:
Only a very superficial understanding of the Bible could lead to the conclusion that it does not condemn abortion. The Bible tells us that God created us all in His image, knows us intimately (can even number the hairs on our head) and did weave us in our mothers womb. His relationship with us does not start at our birth but at the very beginning of the life He creates.
A thing which has just begun to be weaved is not the completed work, it seems to me. There are several passages in the Bible where unborn children are spoken of as having a destiny or special relationship with God, but this does not necessarily entail that this means that they were already fully persons.
When Rebecca was told that her fetuses were so active and her pregnancy so uncomfortable because she had two warring "nations" in her womb, she obviously did not literally have two nations in her womb, and it may equally be that the text did not mean to imply that she already had two persons in her womb. Likewise, Luke tells us that the fetal John the Baptist leaped in Elizabeth's womb when the pregnant virgin Mary entered the room, but given that the adult John does not seem to have been certain that Jesus was the Messiah, it's not clear that this passage teaches that the fetal John was already the person he would be.
Since I'm more comfortable and confident discussing evolution than abortion, may I relate your argument here to that topic? You note that the Bible states that God weaves us in our mothers' wombs. Yet there is a well-developed field of embryology and developmental biology that sees the origin of individual humans as the outworking of genes and their physical environment: much of biological science and medicine depends on embryogenesis being a result of material causes. It seems to me that you have a trilemma here: either you can declare embryology an absurd heresy, or you can declare the bible overturned by advances in developmental biology, or you can regard material and divine causes as complementary. Yet if you take the last option, what is to prevent you from taking evolution and creation as complementary rather than contradictory accounts?
In Exodus 21:22 the word which is translated as “miscarriage” in some translations is the Hebrew word “yasa”. This is used to refer to normal childbirth in Genesis 15:4, Genesis 25, Genesis 26, Jeremiah 1 and Isaiah 39:7. It is used to refer to stillbirth (not miscarriage) in Numbers 12:12. It is not used to refer to miscarriage. Therefore a literal understanding of the passage is that if premature birth occurs with no harm to the baby a fine is imposed BUT if the baby should be harmed then the punishment should fit the crime (a fine would not be sufficient).
It still seems to me that the passage is ambiguous. Hebrew had one word, yalad, which was the usual word for "birth," and another, nepel, which was the usual word for "miscarriage." It uses neither here; a blow, I would think, against the doctrine of verbal inspiration if not against the idea that the Bible opposes abortion. In further defense of the inherent ambiguity of the passage -- its failure to clearly make the point you want it to make -- I point out that several translators have rendered yeled yasa as "miscarry," not "give birth prematurely;" that latter reading became popular (even among conservative scholars) only with the legalization of abortion and the growth of the pro-life movement.
You may well be right. As I noted, the early church fathers did unambiguously condemn abortion, so this may be the most correct interpretation of the biblical text. But it's not so clear as you make it out to be.
Finally I have not heard a logical argument for an atheistic absolute moral framework. Yet within all of us there seems to be knowledge of absolutes – for instance we would all agree that cannibalism is wrong. Where do you think this comes from? John Dewey (1859-1952), co-author and signer of the Humanist Manifesto in 1933, declared, "There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes."
Cannibalism may not be the best example. There's a controversy over how often cannibalism occurred in various human cultures: whether, e.g. the Aztecs were really so fond of eating their enemies as their Spanish conquerors recorded. But there does seem to be evidence that some human cultures (e.g. the Fore of New Guinea) did not find eating their fellow human beings to be obviously wrong.
But, yes, there are universal or near-universal standards of how humans ought to treat members of the tribe or nation (if not humanity in general). As far as an origin for this attitude, it presumably was built in by natural selection for temperaments and traits that enabled us to live in societies and reap the benefits of cooperation, mutual aid and trade. As far as a justification of it, what could there be, except for the fact that such rules help us to live in the sort of society we want to have? I think C.S. Lewis called this right: what sort of justification for a moral code could there be? Any reason we offer would, itself, presuppose a moral code already. That is, any moral justification would imply a moral code already accepted. One could offer the justification "do this, or God will burn you in Hell," but that's just an intensified form of the argument "do this, or Nero will crucify you," or "do this, or Saddam Hussein will feed you to the palace dogs." It's not a moral reason for accepting a moral code.
Is this a basis for an absolute moral code? Perhaps not. As others have pointed out, the Bible itself finds slavery acceptable, and so did most Christians until the last couple of centuries, when they mostly gradually came to view it as morally unacceptable. Absolute moral codes tend to be differently interpreted at different times.
storeytwin a,
you said...
Actually you have no need to expect that a "man of God" would ever promote such wrong teaching. The Bible is the source of all truth.
I say...
So a "man of God" isn't interested in reducing abortion? Outlawing it or abstinence-only aren't effective. What does the Bible being the source of truth have to do with it?
You said...
The World Health Organization is definitely not my first or last choice of information. You are very foolish to trust what they say.
I say...
Can you suggest a more accurate source? I'm interested in knowing what works.
You said...
Ah, communist utopia, where all wealth is evenly distributed and everyone lives happily-ever-after.
NOT. I don't care how hard you try to balance things, as long as sinful humans live on this planet, there will be abortions and every other type of sin.
I say...
That's not at all what I'm saying. There used to be a social contract in this country. A worker was paid enough to actually buy what they produced. A single wage earner could afford to raise a family. A spouse could stay home and raise kids if they chose to without a lot of financial sacrifice. A woman who has some financial security is less likely to abort an unplanned pregnancy.
The economic policy of the last 8 yrs. has favored the accumulation of more wealth for the wealthy and penalized middle and lower income workers. Real wages have declined and income gaps have grown. I'd like to see a more equitable economic and tax policy. Nothing like communism but we're headed towards Plutocracy.
As far as there will always be sin, let's just throw up our hands and forget about it.
You said...
The fact is that you can count on one hand the number of days out of the month that a woman can even conceive. I hardly think that abstaining from relations on a handful of days a month is going to lead to "sexual dysfunction" or any of the other silly things you said.
I say...
The rhythm method works great. When I said sexual repression I mean telling kids a lustful thought is adultry and sex is filthy until your married screws with their heads. Why do think so many Christians dig the porn? Some of the most pious end up being the biggest freaks?
Think it over.
And actually, most abortions are performed on babies that are way past 2 months in the womb, making them no longer classified as an embryo
Ummm... 90% of all abortions are within the first trimester.
Google "When are most abortions performed" for the source of this number.
Blogger Jason said...
forgiven37 said:
I guess it's a good thing stupidity isn't illegal your post would have gotten you 5 to 10.
Oh yeah? You smell like...like...yucky!
Hello Jason, at least you responded Matt D seems to be afraid to address anyone except for Ray. The only thing I smell is chicken
@ethan--
captain howdy said...
If you were in a fertility clinic and a fire broke out, and you could rescue either a trapped, screaming, terrified 2-year-old girl or a tray with 1000 2-week-old embryos in it--but not both--which would you choose?
But then you said--
Again, an irrelevant question that's an obvious attempt to distract from the real issue. Human beings have a right to life no matter there size, or intelligence, or there dependency on others.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You know why I like asking this question, ethan? Because normal people can answer it easily, but religious fanatics--people who want to be the morality police for the rest of society; you know, people like you--always have to start tap-dancing. They go on and on about how fetuses are just teensy-weensy little people, and then when I ask them this question, which should be easy, they start to sputter. Just like you did.
And then they dodge the question.
Just like you did.
I asked Ray that question, too. He frizzed all up, and then wouldn't answer it either.
The reason you can't answer is because if you elect to rescue the little girl you're admitting those embryos aren't really little people after all and you're talking right out of your hat. And if you save the embryos and let the little girl burn alive, you're a sicko and a creep. You're stuck on a dilemma of your own choosing, and all because you, like Ray, joined a weirdo religion.
I can answer it--save the little girl, of course. Why can't you?
Oh; and I'll answer your germ bomb question when Ray posts something about germ weapons, or cancer, or whatever it is your question was supposed to be about. I asked a question that was on topic--the relative value of 1000 fetuses to a frightened 2-yr-old.
Do you need some help?
terry wrote:
Of course, my theory is an insult to your intellect, because...
"...everything I write is an insult to your intellect."
Just finishing your sentence properly for you Tezza.
HBKS!
Strangely, I'm quote mining myself her but never mind.
I said:
I believe murder is wrong – I really believe that – its not because I think that God will condemn me to hell its because I believe it to be wrong. Even if someone told me it was right I would not agree – I have my own moral absolutes, most of which I share with the vast majority of the world, Christian or not. But the main reason that I think my position is superior is that I think this is my only chance – I can’t mess up – If I did kill someone the chances are that I would end up in prison for the rest of my life – the rest of my existence. You, however…. You think that your mortal life on this earth is insignificant compared with the eternity you will spend with God.
And that’s the problem:
What you do on earth doesn’t matter! Yes, I know all the rubbish about the 10 commandments and God’s law but what does that matter? In your worldview all sins are alike. They’re all as bad as each other! If I’ve lusted then I may as well have murdered - indeed, if I’ve lusted I may as well get on and murder as well – they’re both as bad to God – I know this because you have told us it on numerous occasions.
In fact its worse than that:
People say to you: ‘but God’s law is so strict how can any human adhere to it?’
And you say: ‘you can’t. No one can, not even Ray Comfort, messenger from God. But there is a way to save your self. – you can trust in Jesus Christ and allow him into your heart and then he will pay the price for your sins and you may go to heaven – the only unforgivable sin is not believing in God.’
‘Woah!!’ they say ‘I can have my sins forgiven and spend eternity in heaven with God?’
‘Yep!’ you reply.
Well, by definition, if we are to spend eternity with God then our time on earth as a percentage of eternity is absolutely nothing. Any punishment we receive on earth amounts, therefore, to nothing. Zilch. Zero!! There are, in mathematical terms, no earthly consequences whatsoever for our behaviour. Therefore, as long as we accept Jesus into our hearts and go to heaven none of our previous sinning has any consequence.
I can murder and suffer NO consequence as long as I repent and accept Jesus – This, Ray, is the moral ‘absolute’ you preach.
Murderers can spend eternity in heaven whilst if their victims live a relatively good non-murdering life but do not believe in God they will suffer eternal torment in Hell.
This is an important point to me in understanding what you believe as, to me it makes no sense.
However not one christian has been able to give me an answer to it (other than 'that's not what I believe' but in the church of England over here even belief in God seems to be optional) - why not?
Instead of pontificating about what you obviously don't understand pleas comment on this.
Its your religion - you should understand it, or at least have a view on it.
If I'm mis representing you then tell me.
If I'm wrong then tell me.
If you just don't know then tell me.
Atheists on here go to a great deal of trouble to try to explain our viewpoint. Why don't you do the same? There are many questions such as this that we ask that you just ignore. Why?
Phil
While we're on the topic of morals, let's examine a common ethical dilemma.
There is a train hurtling towards 10 people stuck on a track. You can throw a switch to switch the train to another track, but doing so will send the train towards a baby trapped on that track. What do you do?
If there are moral absolutes, then there must be a right answer to this question in the eyes of God. Which is the 'morally right' thing to do? Kill the 10 to save the baby? or kill the baby to save the 10?
You do nothing. You let things happen as they will then you tell the relatives of whoever died that God works in mysterious ways. Oh, and blame atheists for inventing trains.
Aren't the aborted babies now enjoying an eternity in the glory of God?
It seems to me the atheists should be the ones not condoning abortion (yes, I did note that Kaitlyn did not support it) and the Christians not being worried about it at all.
Surely an eternity with God without prior opportunity to sin is better than a life spent sinning and maybe missing the opportunity Heaven presents?
captain howdy said...
...they dodge the question.
Just like you did.
And just like you did.
If you saw an anthrax bomb but only had time to toss in front of 3 young women or just leave it a room of 6 terminal cancer patients who would you choose to suffer a horrible death?
Do you hate women or do you think sick people should just hurry up and die? I just really want to know how evil you are?
Your question, like mine, doesn't answer the question, "When do humans have basic rights - like the right to live?" No matter what crazy question that your immoral heart comes up with you cannot get around the issue of what abortion is really about - murder. But as an atheist, without a moral ground, without sound reasoning; foolish questions, crazy hypothetical situations, and pointless rhetoric is all you have. Retort away.
Also, Dimensio contends that there are absolutely no absolute truths in science.
Dimensio says this over and over as he does here
Nothing in science is proven absolutely.
What kind of nonsense is that? If we didn't have facts we knew were true, we wouldn't be able to build truth and so what is the point of investigating if the whole thing is false anyway? I am amazed at times at how people can come up with these things when it is crystal clear to me that the author of confusion is behind them.
Of course, this ideology leads to sin because in our personal lives there have to be truths that we consider true and right to judge and help us choose. If the truth be known, it has been my personal experience that everyone has a place where they "draw the line." God draws the line back at holiness. We need conscious repentance that leads to unconscious holiness.
Anyway, well said!
Vera
forgiven37 said:
Hello Jason, at least you responded Matt D seems to be afraid to address anyone except for Ray. The only thing I smell is chicken
Maybe you just need to explain to him how important you are!
Veraerandoug said...
Also, Dimensio contends that there are absolutely no absolute truths in science.
Dimensio says this over and over as he does here
Nothing in science is proven absolutely.
What kind of nonsense is that? If we didn't have facts we knew were true, we wouldn't be able to build truth and so what is the point of investigating if the whole thing is false anyway? I am amazed at times at how people can come up with these things when it is crystal clear to me that the author of confusion is behind them.
Not being able to prove anything absolutely in science is a consequence of not being omniscient and not having sampled and observed the entire universe. It's an old problem. David Hume, in the 19th century, provided the most extreme version of it: we can't prove, just because it's happened the last couple of million times we checked, that the sun is going to rise in the East tomorrow. But a more modest application is the "black swan" problem: for thousands of years, every European who saw a swan saw a white swan. Every observation of a swan confirmed the generalization that "all swans are white." Then European explorers found black swans in Australia ....
Philosophers of science started paying closer attention to this problem at the start of the 20th century. At the turn of the century, it seemed to many as though we were closing in on the final answers in physics, as though further discoveries would merely provide "the sixth decimal place" to the scientific models already in place.
The it was learned that Newtonian mechanics and Maxwellian laws governing electromagnetic radiation gave contradictory predictions when applied to the same phenomena; Einstein had to invent relativistic physics to fix this.
And quantum physics was discovered (and still no one's quite constructed a theory that combines relativity and quantum physics). For centuries, Newton's laws were widely regarded as "proved facts;" now they are regarded as approximations, good enough for most purposes but badly wrong in some circumstances.
In math, one can construct absolute proofs, because in math one can construct an artificial, limited universe which is entirely defined by the postulates one selects. There's absolutely zero chance, for example, that anyone is ever going to discover a new Euclidean postulate.
But this obviously isn't the case in science: we didn't make the universe and we haven't cataloged all the phenomena and forces in it, much less all the ways they can work together. We can never be sure whether a theory has always been confirmed by experiment because it is in fact right, or simply because it's close enough to right for the circumstances in which we've tested it.
The next observation we make might conceivably be the "black swan" that forces us to revise our theories, perhaps a little, perhaps drastically. But as long as the possibility exists, science cannot provide absolute certainty or absolute proof.
Creationists usually don't need to be told this: creationism, these days, is pretty much reduced to hoping that some future discovery will force scientists to abandon evolution, and variants of epistemological nihilism ("we weak fallible humans can never be sure of the results of our frail reason") are the coin of the realm in creationism.
Of course, this ideology leads to sin because in our personal lives there have to be truths that we consider true and right to judge and help us choose. If the truth be known, it has been my personal experience that everyone has a place where they "draw the line." God draws the line back at holiness. We need conscious repentance that leads to unconscious holiness.
Religion can draw the line at holiness; science needs to draw the line at best inference from consilience of data. Of course, there are cases where science has a different sort of problem: if we're trying to decide when a cell, or mass of cells, with human genes is a "human being," we're asking biology to solve a question of philosophical classification for which its tools are not necessarily appropriate.
Ray, if you ever need a break, can you let Steven J write some articles for your blog :)
I said
Finally I have not heard a logical argument for an atheistic absolute moral framework. Yet within all of us there seems to be knowledge of absolutes – for instance we would all agree that cannibalism is wrong. Where do you think this comes from? John Dewey (1859-1952), co-author and signer of the Humanist Manifesto in 1933, declared, "There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes."
Steven J replied
”Cannibalism may not be the best example. There's a controversy over how often cannibalism occurred in various human cultures: whether, e.g. the Aztecs were really so fond of eating their enemies as their Spanish conquerors recorded. But there does seem to be evidence that some human cultures (e.g. the Fore of New Guinea) did not find eating their fellow human beings to be obviously wrong.
But, yes, there are universal or near-universal standards of how humans ought to treat members of the tribe or nation (if not humanity in general). As far as an origin for this attitude, it presumably was built in by natural selection for temperaments and traits that enabled us to live in societies and reap the benefits of cooperation, mutual aid and trade. As far as a justification of it, what could there be, except for the fact that such rules help us to live in the sort of society we want to have? I think C.S. Lewis called this right: what sort of justification for a moral code could there be? Any reason we offer would, itself, presuppose a moral code already. That is, any moral justification would imply a moral code already accepted .One could offer the justification "do this, or God will burn you in Hell," but that's just an intensified form of the argument "do this, or Nero will crucify you," or "do this, or Saddam Hussein will feed you to the palace dogs." It's not a moral reason for accepting a moral code.
Is this a basis for an absolute moral code? Perhaps not. As others have pointed out, the Bible itself finds slavery acceptable, and so did most Christians until the last couple of centuries, when they mostly gradually came to view it as morally unacceptable. Absolute moral codes tend to be differently interpreted at different times.”
Steven, you seem to be suggesting the evolution of moral absolutes. Isn’t this a contradiction in terms?
I think that what you say is a possible justification of a moral code i.e. “do this, or God will burn you in Hell," is not a justification but a consequence of not observing it.
An absolute moral code does not rest or depend on any other moral code as it is absolute. It presupposes an absolute moral code giver – God. The absolute moral code is the Ten Commandments which represent the character of God.
It does not seem possible to have an absolute atheistic moral code yet as you say “But, yes, there are universal or near-universal standards of how humans ought to treat members of the tribe or nation (if not humanity in general).” Why do you think this is?
The closest to an absolute moral code that I can see emerge from an atheistic position is the “survival of the fittest”. This would obviously have implications on how we treated the least and most vulnerable in society. Yet this is not what we see. Why do you think this is?
UnclePT replied to me:
Steven, you seem to be suggesting the evolution of moral absolutes. Isn’t this a contradiction in terms?
At the risk of seeming Clintonesque, that depends on the meaning of "moral absolutes." Are moral absolutes rules applicable at all places at all times to all possible intelligent beings? If so, "do not commit adultery" is not an absolute moral rule; it depends on us being a particular sort of creature, with sexual urges, capabilities, and temptations. If humans had been made (as some species are) hermaphrodites, there would be no moral rules relevant to homosexuality, a concept that would not even exist for such a species.
I am arguing that moral rules are grounded in evolved human nature; if evolution had produced a different nature in us, different moral rules would apply. This may suggest that cultural evolution is also relevant: it may change us and therefore change what is right and wrong for us.
I think that what you say is a possible justification of a moral code i.e. “do this, or God will burn you in Hell," is not a justification but a consequence of not observing it.
An absolute moral code does not rest or depend on any other moral code as it is absolute. It presupposes an absolute moral code giver – God. The absolute moral code is the Ten Commandments which represent the character of God.
It's not clear to me that an absolute moral code presupposes a moral code giver. What makes God's will "absolutely" moral? If, hypothetically, God ordered us to kill and eat babies for Sunday morning worship, would that be absolutely moral? If you say "yes," it's not clear what the value of absolute morals is. If you say "no," or "God would never do that," then absolute morality would seem not to rest on the authority of an absolute Lawgiver, but on the nature of God and on the nature he built into creation. This, in turn, would seem to argue that morality (as applies to humans) rests on human nature (whether evolved or created). On this view, what makes God's rules absolute (assuming He exists and makes absolute rules) is that they perfectly reflect the nature of His creation. But presumably that nature and the rules that follow from it would exist whether God issued any commandments or not.
It does not seem possible to have an absolute atheistic moral code yet as you say “But, yes, there are universal or near-universal standards of how humans ought to treat members of the tribe or nation (if not humanity in general).” Why do you think this is?
We are descended from many millions of generations of organisms that lived in social groups and benefitted from mutual cooperation, allowing each member of the group to have a higher chance of reproductive success than if he'd lived a solitary existence. We evolved a sense of fair play to ensure that we were not cheated and because holding up our end of a relationship made others more likely to cooperate with us. Love for our families, especially, led us to protect and assist individuals who carried copies of our distinctive genes, thereby increasing their chances of passing on genes that predisposed them (and us) to such love of kin and cooperation. As our minds and behavior became more complex, social structures could undergo an analogous evolution: social structures that enabled societies to thrive would become more widespread, while maladaptive social rules tended to lead to societies going extinct.
The closest to an absolute moral code that I can see emerge from an atheistic position is the “survival of the fittest”. This would obviously have implications on how we treated the least and most vulnerable in society. Yet this is not what we see. Why do you think this is?
Are you familiar with the philosophical principle (first explicitly enunciated by David Hume) that "one cannot derive an ought from an is?" Natural selection is not a reason for discriminating against or persecuting the weaker or most vulnerable members of a society; it is not a justification for any social policy. We might as well, as one wag put it, invoke the law of gravity as a justification for pushing people off the tops of buildings.
I would argue a stronger point: "the fittest" is not, itself, some universal or absolute quality; it is always relative to a particular environment. Very different traits are "fitter" in an arctic enviroment and in a tropical jungle, for example. "Fittest" is not always "strongest," or "biggest," or, for that matter, "smartest;" it may be "most fecund," or "takes best care of offspring," or "most resistant to disease," or something else.
Any social order is going to have some influence on the chances of reproductive success of its members, and different effects on different members. That is, every possible social order changes, slightly or greatly, the definition of "fittest" for the human beings in it, and, by definition, favors whoever ends up being "fittest" (which will be different in each case). Since either weak or strong selective pressures are compatible with evolutionary theory, all possible social orders are therefore equally consistent with "survival of the fittest;" evolutionary theory provides us no reason to favor one selective regime over another, and we must fall back on reasons other than our scientific theories.
I was assuming, when I wrote the above three paragraphs, that you meant that atheism implies that we ought to base our morals on "survival of the fittest;" as I explained above, this if our moral sense was evolved rather than miraculously created, then we would all feel, in our hearts, a desire to hurt the weak and sick rather than feel compassion for them. But note that all our children start off weak and helpless, and many individuals who bear our genes are often sick. In an intelligent, social species, our genes benefit if we're willing, within some limits, to help the weak (after all, when we were evolving, most of the weak we ran across would be relatives, or individuals who, if nursed back to help, might repay the favor in the future).
It seems to me that if the moral code was programmed into us at creation, such that all humans are supposedly aware of them by default, then the Ten Commandments was essentially a waste of time and stone (and a couple of thousand years late).
The more I hang around this site, the more I see creationists portraying God as a rather poor creator. It seems we are something of a failed experiment that He's been trying to rectify, mostly through wrath, since day one.
Steven J replied to me:
“At the risk of seeming Clintonesque, that depends on the meaning of "moral absolutes." Are moral absolutes rules applicable at all places at all times to all possible intelligent beings? If so, "do not commit adultery" is not an absolute moral rule; it depends on us being a particular sort of creature, with sexual urges, capabilities, and temptations. If humans had been made (as some species are) hermaphrodites, there would be no moral rules relevant to homosexuality, a concept that would not even exist for such a species.
I am arguing that moral rules are grounded in evolved human nature; if evolution had produced a different nature in us, different moral rules would apply. This may suggest that cultural evolution is also relevant: it may change us and therefore change what is right and wrong for us.”
I don’t think that an absolute moral law has to apply at all times at all places to all intelligent beings but does apply at all times at all places to all moral beings (those with a sense of right and wrong) – man.
Humans have not been made hermaphrodites and so your argument is interesting but irrelevant.
Isn’t it interesting that despite the evolutionists claim that man has evolved over millions of years, different natures and moral codes havent evolved? Despite dramatically different environments, cultures, climates, periods of isolation and other potential selective forces man’s knowledge of right and wrong is remarkably uniform and stable.
“It's not clear to me that an absolute moral code presupposes a moral code giver. What makes God's will "absolutely" moral? If, hypothetically, God ordered us to kill and eat babies for Sunday morning worship, would that be absolutely moral? If you say "yes," it's not clear what the value of absolute morals is. If you say "no," or "God would never do that," then absolute morality would seem not to rest on the authority of an absolute Lawgiver, but on the nature of God and on the nature he built into creation. This, in turn, would seem to argue that morality (as applies to humans) rests on human nature (whether evolved or created). On this view, what makes God's rules absolute (assuming He exists and makes absolute rules) is that they perfectly reflect the nature of His creation. But presumably that nature and the rules that follow from it would exist whether God issued any commandments or not.”
If morals are a reflection of God’s unchanging, eternal, perfect character then it matters not whether I percieve value in them. If I say “I disagree with your morals God as I see no value in them” I am putting myself above God.
God has given us a knowledge of right and wrong through creating us in His image and through the Ten Commandments. We are therefore in a position where we can say that “God would never do that” should someone suggest that we should kill and eat babies for Sunday morning worship. That is through an understanding of His nature and authority. I can only make sense of what I know (as in right and wrong) and what I see (as in mankinds knowledge of right and wrong) through a belief that God exists.
If I were to ask an atheist “is it wrong to kill and eat babies” most would say it was. But if I could show that it was right for a society at a certain time then I can show that it is not absolutely wrong, only relatively wrong.
“We are descended from many millions of generations of organisms that lived in social groups and benefitted from mutual cooperation, allowing each member of the group to have a higher chance of reproductive success than if he'd lived a solitary existence. We evolved a sense of fair play to ensure that we were not cheated and because holding up our end of a relationship made others more likely to cooperate with us. Love for our families, especially, led us to protect and assist individuals who carried copies of our distinctive genes, thereby increasing their chances of passing on genes that predisposed them (and us) to such love of kin and cooperation. As our minds and behavior became more complex, social structures could undergo an analogous evolution: social structures that enabled societies to thrive would become more widespread, while maladaptive social rules tended to lead to societies going extinct.”
There is a lot to challenge in this paragraph. Evolution of love and a sense of fair play are interesting concepts.
“We evolved a sense of fair play to ensure that we were not cheated and because holding up our end of a relationship made others more likely to cooperate with us” suggests a sense of purpose in evolution which it can not have.
I agree that it is possible to construct an argument that there is competitive advantage in the development of a sense of protection for one’s own young – so that your other successful genes could be passed on to the next generation but this does not explain why we would take care of old, lame, diseased individuals. They have no influence on succesive generations and are in evolutionary terms a waste of resources.
“Natural selection is not a reason for discriminating against or persecuting the weaker or most vulnerable members of a society; it is not a justification for any social policy. We might as well, as one wag put it, invoke the law of gravity as a justification for pushing people off the tops of buildings.”
I don’t believe that natural selection is a reason for persecuting anyone but an implication of the theory of evolution (or something that it would predict) is a code of behaviour that would disregard the needs of those who are a waste of resources. Individuals or societies who waste resources on the old and weak would be at an obvious competitive disadvantage. However this is not what we see. The Bible reveals both the character of God and man. It would predict that we will look after the old and weak – which we do.
A final and practical question. How do you get paragraphs to appear in bold? I have to change to bold in the blog and typing in Word and importing text to the blog with no success.
UnclePT
I like your comments and input.
In order to make font changes you put the letters 'i' or 'b' inbetween <> before you type.
Follow the example below. Notice the / at the end. I hope you figure it out.
(b)This is my sentence.(/b)
When I replace the all the () with <> on each side it just shows up bold.
This is my sentence.
UnclePT,
I see that Keith (ex-atheist) has already explained how to add formatting to your posts (how is it that other people see the blog updates before I do, even when the blog updates appear while I'm reading or posting to the blog!?).
As he notes, you have to put HTML tags in your text: left angle bracket "<" (on most computer keyboards, that would be SHIFT+comma), then either a lower-case "i" for italics or a lower-case "b" for bold, then right angle bracket ">"(SHIFT+period). Start the text you want bolded or italicized directly after the right angle bracket, and right at the end of the bolded or italicized text, put "<", "/b" or "/i" as appropriate, and ">"; run these together with no spaces (or quotation marks) between them.
As for your questions:
Is it astonishing that human moral codes are remarkable uniform and stable, if we assume that these moral codes evolved to meet changing conditions?
The line leading to humans split off from that leading to chimpanzees about six million years ago. Anatomically modern humans appeared about 300,000 years ago. The oldest surviving art (presumably, made by people who already had sophisticated languages) is about 100,000 years old. The oldest surviving writing (and hence, the oldest surviving descriptions of moral codes) are less than 6000 years old. So it's not that remarkable that human nature and human morals have been fairly stable for the last two to five percent of our existence. It's not clear how different environmental challenges would have selected for radically different moral senses, as long as cooperation and mutual aid would assist in meeting those challenges. In any case, until fairly recently (e.g. within the last thousand centuries) in our history, all our ancestors lived in a fairly restricted and uniform region of eastern Africa.
Note that other primate species show some traces of a proto-moral sense: monkeys have been known to object to being given a cucumber slice for performing tasks once they've seen other monkeys paid with a grape (a preferred treat) for the same task. Other primates seem to show parental concern, and concern for kin. Our moral sense would seem to have been a long time in development; recorded history is a small fraction of that time.
You seem to agree with me that morality is not simply a set of commands from God, but is rooted in our nature. You of course see that nature as created, not evolved, and find it implausible, not that we could recognize right and wrong apart from a belief in God, but that we could explain how we could even have a moral sense or recognize the difference between good and evil apart from God. I have tried to explain a possible answer; if I have failed, well, I have failed. I don't think my failure means that you have to be correct.
Why, if morality is evolved rather than specially created, would we bother to care for the aged or crippled? I offer a couple of suggestions ("just-so stories," if you prefer), which are not mutually exclusive.
First, you may err in assuming that such people are useless to society at large or to the people who aid them. Even those too old and weak to hunt, gather, chip flint or wrangle children can give advice. Anthropologists have found that in hunter-gatherer societies, it's the old who remember where you can find food in prolonged droughts, or what it means when the game starts acting a certain weird way. Keeping old people alive and participating means keeping their hard-won experience available to the young, strong, and ignorant.
Second, remember that when we talk about evolutionary strategies, we're not talking about people actually thinking about or deciding on these strategies. Just as a polar bear doesn't decide to have white fur to blend into its icy environment, our forebears didn't decide to love their kin and neighbors; some were just born with more compassionate temperments or a capacity for feeling guilty for cruelty, and they acted according to those temperaments. The ape-man who shared food with an aged member of the band didn't do it because he expected some payoff later, but if he got that payoff later (in the form of whatever aid that other member of the band could provide), and it helped him to have and raise children of his own, any genes that inclined him to generosity would be passed on to those children and would become more frequent.
To some extent, compassion for the aged and crippled may simply be an expression of a more general compassion for those we recognize as members of the group; the question then becomes, why has natural selection not made our reactions more precise so that we only feel compassion towards those that might help us in the future? The answer may have to do with either the difficulty of so refining our moral sense, or with the inability to predict accurately who's actually going to be able to help us in the future. Or, on a related note, others considering whether to help us might be inclined to take into account how we treat third parties.
So it's not actually so obvious that those who waste resources on the aged and weak are at a competitive disadvantage.
unclept wrote:
Isn’t it interesting that despite the evolutionists claim that man has evolved over millions of years, different natures and moral codes havent evolved? Despite dramatically different environments, cultures, climates, periods of isolation and other potential selective forces man’s knowledge of right and wrong is remarkably uniform and stable.
On which planet? On Earth, the human race has demonstrated diverse sets of moral attitudes and some of those remain in pockets.
Stoning a woman to death is she is raped or even talks to the wrong man is hardly a universal moral standard.
Racial hatred and genocide have been widely practiced in the past but, hopefully, are becoming less common.
We don't burn witches any more.
Slavery has been all but abolished.
History shows changing attitudes and moral standards to the point where we may well be converging to a single, universal standard.
Contrary to your assertion, it is decreasing isolation that will drive us toward that universal standard. In fact, I'd say the moral code continues to evolve, as we might expect.
andy said to me
On which planet? On Earth, the human race has demonstrated diverse sets of moral attitudes and some of those remain in pockets.
Stoning a woman to death is she is raped or even talks to the wrong man is hardly a universal moral standard.
Racial hatred and genocide have been widely practiced in the past but, hopefully, are becoming less common.
We don't burn witches any more.
Slavery has been all but abolished.
History shows changing attitudes and moral standards to the point where we may well be converging to a single, universal standard.
Contrary to your assertion, it is decreasing isolation that will drive us toward that universal standard. In fact, I'd say the moral code continues to evolve, as we might expect.
Andy, you are confusing behaviour with knowledge of right and wrong. Of course man has had a chequered history as far as behaviour is concerned but I maintain that his knowledge of right and wrong has not changed.
UnclePT said:
Andy, you are confusing behaviour with knowledge of right and wrong. Of course man has had a chequered history as far as behaviour is concerned but I maintain that his knowledge of right and wrong has not changed.
I have absolute 100% scientific proof that everyone on this planet who has ever lived has loved to drink Pepsi cola. Now, you can cite demographics that show that more people actually buy Coke than Pepsi, and you can even try to argue that Pepsi has only existed for a small fraction of human history. But you would be confusing behavior with love of Pepsi. Of course man has had a checkered history as far as actually purchasing Pepsi is concerned but I maintain that this preference for Pepsi cola has not changed.
Stephen
I understand the dilemma of science. However, to state that nothing is as it seems in case we discover something new is the stuff for which fairy tales are made.
The next observation we make might conceivably be the "black swan" that forces us to revise our theories, perhaps a little, perhaps drastically. But as long as the possibility exists, science cannot provide absolute certainty or absolute proof.
Yes, but we can discern that swans are true and that there is a white one prior to discovering the black. I have heard from Dr. Ross that there were ten dimensions at the point of creation. I think we have discovered and understand a few of them. The problem with knowledge is that, as we have daily proof, it has a tendency to puff people up and deny God. Instead of marveling at God's creation in terms of how life "evolved," man decides that no other mechanism is needed but nature because we're all that and can dissect a strand of DNA. I say, "Big deal." You have no idea the rest of the story. We haven't even scratched the surface of what DNA can do. If you ask me science is more like your final analogy of Christians than Christians " ("we weak fallible humans can never be sure of the results of our frail reason")" by declaring certain strands of DNA where the function is unknown as "junk." When clearly it has been shown that this is not quite true.
But of course, we all have to be open to change if truth is being revealed. We all have to be able to humble ourselves and say, "I was wrong."
The part that you do not understand is that I know God. I know He's real even if you and everyone else drop the ball to start sinning. It is sin that keeps us separated from Him. Sin is not some arbitrary thing. It is crystal clear in Scripture what God hates. I know the good side of God and His loving attributes. He shows mercy and compassion to those who love Him and keep His commandments. He answers my prayers. I would say I do more listening than presumptuous talking. I want His will to be done here on earth as it is in heaven. The prayers of the wicked are an abomination to Him. The only prayer He will respond to in such a person is one of repentance and for this crowd that would start with the pride of thinking they're smarter than He is or implying that God is a fool.
The Bible is a part of something tangible that God has inspired and laid out for us. Whatever your assertions about how it was canonized, I believe every step of the way, God ordered that process to give us what we have today.
Religion can draw the line at holiness; science needs to draw the line at best inference from consilience of data. Of course, there are cases where science has a different sort of problem: if we're trying to decide when a cell, or mass of cells, with human genes is a "human being," we're asking biology to solve a question of philosophical classification for which its tools are not necessarily appropriate.
Holiness and Science are from the same Source. We are not talking about religion, Stephen. Religion is ritualistic holiness that cannot effect the heart of man. That is what I think of when I think of religion. It is going through all the steps and methods to please God and you know and I know that doesn't do squat. In fact, the more you head down that rabbit trail, the further away from God you become. Right now, science needs a swift kick in the pants. It is leading more young people into atheism by the droves than is imaginable. Science refuses to hold itself to a moral standard unless forced to do so. It holds itself to a standard in terms of finding truth in nature though.
Look at Romans 1 and think about what is happening here.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
God is eventually going to pour out His wrath on people that hold the truth in unrighteousness. So there are people that believe the truth is that unrighteousness is truth and holiness is the lie. Sound familiar?
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
I believe at one point in time, every person on this planet has had a revelation of God because of the spirit of man that is God manifest in them. This includes your conscience as well. I know that you above anyone else here has experienced God.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Everything about creation points to God being real. Knowing how it progressed and how it was done is fine. But according to Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, these things are clearly seen.
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Why would someone stop glorifying God and being thankful to Him? One thing would be that he might decide that God is not necessary for the blessings he is enjoying. He would glorify man's achievements in science above God's glory and proclaim his knowledge is something that he evolved to without any help. Such a man declares that he has no need for Almighty God.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools
Then this individual declares himself an atheist believing he is superior to anyone that would believe in a Creator God. I noticed on one of the podcasts from Evolutoin 101, that Dr. Zach decides to check out some statistics concerning creationists and how a large majority of people believe in God's hand in creation either through natural means or through personal intervention. But then he is quick to make a conclusion that it is only the uneducated that believe this. Us higher ups that are in college stop believing these things because we have the superior intellect. Phooey. Claiming to be wise, he became a fool.
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
How does this happen? Because for one thing the mechanism for creation is now animals. See animals are actually the ones that created everything including us. Glory to the chimpanzee. Oh uh -cough cough- I mean the primate that gave rise to the chimpanzee and us. God is then made to be like corruptible man for several reasons but one major one is that man is then classified as an animal making the image of God like an animal. In the atheist evolutionist crowd, God's workings are dismissed and overlooked.
In these podcasts, he goes over Darwinian evolution. There are several key points that he makes that do not lead us to understand the mechanism for an Ambulocetus to become the whale without any purposeful DNA manipulation from God Almighty. This is strictly done by "natural selection." Well I for one find that explanation grossly inadequate on any level for explaining how a nose breathing animal respires through a blowhole. It is not even in the ballpark of the ring evolution of the lizard, which I might point out is still a lizard, the finch, which is still a finch and so forth.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Now here comes God's reaction to all this and let this one sink in because if you can't see that this is happening, check out Dr. Zach's podcasts and please note the Evolution to homosexuality podcast and all the other sexual points he makes. Just as predicted perfectly by the Bible, this mentality causes God to stop holding you back from sin. The Christian young people that find themselves in college today are experimenting with sexual deviance left and right. It is nauseating to me the level of sexual depravity these people are falling into. Why? Because they no longer fear God. There is absolutely zero minus minus fear of God in an overwhelming number of college students.
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Why? because they have changed the truth of God into a lie. From my perspective, that is exactly what has happened. This group is constantly calling God, His Son, His Word, His Spirit a lie. They use the times the church failed, the canonization of Scripture, the misunderstandings of science in the Word etc to perpetrate the lie. I want to add that they barely acknowledge the scientists associated with RTB.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
And there you have it. God has given up these people to vile affections. He is no longer speaking to them in their conscience or giving them any grace to stop doing what they're doing.
The only solution is humbly kneeling before God and repenting of the sin of pride and arrogance, bitterness and all the sexual immorality and start walking holy with God by His grace that He imparts to you and suffering through life to do the right thing.
Then as a scientist, seek the truth, by all means. I commend you for such a heart toward discovering the truth of nature. I think you personally would be a tremendous asset to seeking the truth of Science and God. We need that kind of integrity in science.
Vera
Jason said I have absolute 100% scientific proof that everyone on this planet who has ever lived has loved to drink Pepsi cola. Now, you can cite demographics that show that more people actually buy Coke than Pepsi, and you can even try to argue that Pepsi has only existed for a small fraction of human history. But you would be confusing behavior with love of Pepsi. Of course man has had a checkered history as far as actually purchasing Pepsi is concerned but I maintain that this preference for Pepsi cola has not changed.
Thanks Jason. I'm sure you know what you mean but I have to say you've lost me.
Anyhow you mention one thing of interest "I have absolute 100% scientific proof....". I think this is something that gets in the way of an interesting discussion. Anyone (from either side of the debate) who suggests that they have 100% scientific proof that they are right is wrong.
I am very happy to confirm that my position rests on faith which I cant fully explain but for which I believe the bibles explanation that this is a gift from God (I would add that this is underpinned by evidence from science, His Creation, archeology, ontology, philosophy, textural crticism and is therefore logical). Your position is also based on faith though I would be surprised if you were to accept this.
I think that neither of us expects to have 100% scientific proof but hopefully we are both seeking after truth. Are you?
UnclePT said:
Thanks Jason. I'm sure you know what you mean but I have to say you've lost me.
It's a simple analogy. You say that humans have a universal moral code, or something like that, and when someone responds with examples showing otherwise, you say, "Yeah, but they were thinking it!" It's just like my Pepsi analogy.
Anyhow you mention one thing of interest "I have absolute 100% scientific proof....". I think this is something that gets in the way of an interesting discussion. Anyone (from either side of the debate) who suggests that they have 100% scientific proof that they are right is wrong.
We both agree on this. I got the phrase "absolute 100% scientific proof" from Ray Comfort, and I only say it as a joke.
Your position is also based on faith though I would be surprised if you were to accept this.
My beliefs about God are all based on faith. My positions about natural history are based on evidence.
I think that neither of us expects to have 100% scientific proof but hopefully we are both seeking after truth. Are you?
I have spent my entire life seeking after truth, and the journey has taken me away from Young Earth Creationism.
@Uncle PT:
I hit submit before I proofread the first part of my reply, and I have the feeling that I did not explain my Pepsi comment very well.
The idea that all human beings throughout history have loved Pepsi is analogous to your claim that different natures and moral codes have not evolved.
When presented with evidence to the contrary, you replied that though people may have behaved as though they had different moral codes, they still knew the nature of right and wrong. This is analogous to me saying that even though people existed for thousands of years before Pepsi did, they still loved Pepsi because their preference was to love Pepsi. Neither is likely, and neither is testable.
unclept replied to me:
Andy, you are confusing behaviour with knowledge of right and wrong. Of course man has had a chequered history as far as behaviour is concerned but I maintain that his knowledge of right and wrong has not changed.
Hmmm, so you have proof of this "knowledge" I guess? I mean, right back to "first man" - and, of course, I mean other than scripture?
Response to Steven J
Following your last comment a couple of questions spring to mind.
First do you agree that from an atheistic position it is impossible to say with certainty that anything is really right or wrong but simply that at this moment or that moment it is acceptable or unacceptable?
Secondly if we look at an example of behaviour that I think that everybody would agree is wrong - premeditated murder for personal gain, it is possible to show how a behavioural code could evolve where this would seem wrong if the victim was part of the protagonists family or society. But equally it is possible to show how a code of behaviour could evolve where this would seem acceptable if the victim were a competitor for valuable resources. This would fit very well with the concept of the survival of the fittest. I understand that a could does not necessarily mean will but do you agree that the Christian belief that God has written His Law on our hearts such that all men are without excuse is a much better fit?
"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might. And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart; you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up" (Deuteronomy 6:5-7).
Secondly if we look at an example of behaviour that I think that everybody would agree is wrong - premeditated murder for personal gain, it is possible to show how a behavioural code could evolve where this would seem wrong if the victim was part of the protagonists family or society. But equally it is possible to show how a code of behaviour could evolve where this would seem acceptable if the victim were a competitor for valuable resources.
That sounds like something we call "war". It occurs not only in humans but right throughout the animal kingdom. God seems to have ignored it (though He's often been used as an excuse for it).
Verandoug replied to me:
I understand the dilemma of science. However, to state that nothing is as it seems in case we discover something new is the stuff for which fairy tales are made.
How fortunate for me, then, that I have argued no such thing. I have argued that some things are not as they seem, that in the past we've been wrong about which things those are, and that we cannot be certain that this time, we're making no errors. Given the overwhelming majority of scientists who accept common descent through natural causes, I'd think you'd be a little more eager to accept this point.
Yes, but we can discern that swans are true and that there is a white one prior to discovering the black. I have heard from Dr. Ross that there were ten dimensions at the point of creation. I think we have discovered and understand a few of them.
Yes, you can look at swans and see that they exist and are white. If you'd checked a biology textbook written half a century ago, it would have told you that human beings have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs) in each cell nucleus. Several biologists looked at the pictures on which this count was based, and agreed with it. Then a new count with more sophisticated methods was carried out, and it turned out that we have only 46 chromosomes (23 pairs). Even straightforward observations can be wrong from time to time, which is why science puts such stress on repeatability of observations and tests, and on re-confirming observations.
By the way, do you have any idea what "ten dimensions" means in the context of cosmology? Picture a line: the line has one dimension. You can specify any point on the line with one number. Make the line part of a plane, and you need two numbers to describe its position. Make the plane part of a three-dimensional space, and you need, of course, three numbers. Add in a fourth dimension, time, and you need four dimensions.
Now, imagine a long, long, perfectly smooth pipe extending to the horizon in either direction. Its surface is two dimensional (so is the surface of a sphere), even if the pipe itself is three-dimensional. Note that you can go very far in one dimension, but in the other, you can only travel the small circumference of the pipe before you get back to your starting point: not all dimensions need to be equally large (and the fact that the pipe is curved in one dimension doesn't mean the other dimension needs to be noticeably curved).
Now, physicists have been trying for decades to construct a theory that combines quantum physics with relativity. Thus far, every theory that comes close to doing this needs some extra dimensions to accomodate its forces: three very large spacial dimensions (the three that describe the space we see around us), one large time dimension, and half a dozen very very small dimensions, smaller than an atom (think of that pipeline again: suppose it's three inches across, and you try to paint a foot-wide round spot on its surface: one of the dimensions of the pipe surface is less than a foot in extent). This is a "ten dimensional universe;" I suspect that you had some rather different idea.
The problem with knowledge is that, as we have daily proof, it has a tendency to puff people up and deny God. Instead of marveling at God's creation in terms of how life "evolved," man decides that no other mechanism is needed but nature because we're all that and can dissect a strand of DNA. I say, "Big deal." You have no idea the rest of the story. We haven't even scratched the surface of what DNA can do. If you ask me science is more like your final analogy of Christians than Christians " ("we weak fallible humans can never be sure of the results of our frail reason")" by declaring certain strands of DNA where the function is unknown as "junk." When clearly it has been shown that this is not quite true.
It seems odd to me to insist, on the one hand, that "we haven't even scratched the surface of what DNA can do," and then, on the other hand, display utter incredulity that mutations and natural selection can shape subtle and complex adaptions. Now, I suppose your point is that strings of seemingly random noncoding DNA might have functions that are currently unknown. On the other hand, whatever functions they have, they're still strings of purines and pyrimidines, capable of being produced by known chemical processes and mutations: if they can do subtle and astonishing things, then mutation and natural selection can do subtle and astonishing things.
Biologists have uncovered important functions of some noncoding DNA sequences, including pseudogenes and promoter regions of genes. In other cases, though, they have shown that large stretches of apparently random bases can be deleted from genomes entirely, or replaced by other random sequences, with no discernable effect. If you don't accept that as proof that some DNA is, in fact, functionless junk, then you are arguing my point with, if anything, more ferver than I am myself.
Note that the conclusion that all DNA must have a function is not a conclusion from evidence and reason, however frail and fallible; it is based on an intuition that God must be a perfectly efficient and elegant Creator, whether that it particularly evident in light of present knowledge at all. Again, you seem more dubious of the results of science than I am, so I can't quite figure out why you're attacking the idea that its conclusions are always provisional. I suspect it's because you're interested in science only as an apologetic tool, so you object to humans being classed as animals, because you think that somehow means that we ought to act "like animals," and you don't like being told that science cannot grant certainty, because that means that your favorite apologetics tool cannot grant you the certainty that you want.
How does this happen? Because for one thing the mechanism for creation is now animals. See animals are actually the ones that created everything including us. Glory to the chimpanzee. Oh uh -cough cough- I mean the primate that gave rise to the chimpanzee and us. God is then made to be like corruptible man for several reasons but one major one is that man is then classified as an animal making the image of God like an animal. In the atheist evolutionist crowd, God's workings are dismissed and overlooked.
Humans are like animals, because we are animals. In our overall anatomy, in the details of our cells and genes and biochemistry, our senses, and, yes, in our sexuality (although in some respects we're not very much like any other ape species -- we seem to be more like birds, probably because like many birds we need two parents to take care of a few very dependent children -- the very fact that we are sexual presumably distinguishes us from God). As I noted, classic Christian philosophers had no problem describing humans as animals. If the image of God cannot be possessed by an animal, or the fact that a species with the spiritual image of God has the physical image of African apes means that God must be like an African ape, then Christian theology has a problem whether you ascribe our nature to evolution or special creation. I think Darwin called this one right: if God can work through the processes of normal human reproduction to produce individual humans, He presumably can work through the processes of biological evolution to produce a species in His own image.
UnclePT responded to me:
Following your last comment a couple of questions spring to mind.
First do you agree that from an atheistic position it is impossible to say with certainty that anything is really right or wrong but simply that at this moment or that moment it is acceptable or unacceptable?
That's an interesting and troubling question.
I'm not sure what you mean by the distinction between "right" and "acceptable." Atheists and theists alike can differ in moral judgments on specific issues; look to the history of the U.S. for disparate Bible-based arguments on the morality (or lack thereof) of slavery. Obviously, an atheist cannot say, logically, that "God has told me that the right position on this issue is A, and that B is horribly sinful." That does not mean that he cannot hold that position A is, in fact, far more in keeping with "the noblest part of our nature," or absolutely better for human beings (however it might be for some other hypothetical species, like hermaphroditic intelligent dinosaurs). It may be that the atheist has no grounds for complete certainty, but historically, complete certainty has correlated rather badly with moral rightness as judged by third parties or later generations.
Secondly if we look at an example of behaviour that I think that everybody would agree is wrong - premeditated murder for personal gain, it is possible to show how a behavioural code could evolve where this would seem wrong if the victim was part of the protagonists family or society. But equally it is possible to show how a code of behaviour could evolve where this would seem acceptable if the victim were a competitor for valuable resources. This would fit very well with the concept of the survival of the fittest. I understand that a could does not necessarily mean will but do you agree that the Christian belief that God has written His Law on our hearts such that all men are without excuse is a much better fit?
Historically, there have been many examples in which killing competitors for resources has been seen as morally acceptable or even praiseworthy. See, e.g. the daughters of Jerusalem praising their national heroes, "Saul has killed his thousands, but David his ten thousands [of uncircumcised heathens, of course, not of Israelites]." If you kill competitors from outside your own tribe or band, that is generally acceptable to your tribe or band. If you kill competitors inside your tribe or band ... well, those are the people you live next to, the people you may need to borrow food from, or depend on to help in a hunt, or to cover your back the next time you kill a competitor from another tribe. They won't trust you or cooperate with you if you're prone to kill fellow tribe-members; they're more likely to expell or even kill you themselves, which is not going to be good for your chances of passing on your anti-social genes.
So natural selection, in social animals can plausibly evolve a "do not do to your fellow tribesman what you would hate for him to do to you." Even "do to your fellow tribesman what you would want him to do to you" is conceivable. Moral progress then consists of expanding the mental category of "fellow tribesman" to encompass more and more of humanity. This assumes that the definition of "fellow tribesman" is not itself fixed by evolution, but is derived from culture and/or reason.
"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might. And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart; you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up" (Deuteronomy 6:5-7).
Verandoug said to me:
In these podcasts, [Dr. Zach] goes over Darwinian evolution. There are several key points that he makes that do not lead us to understand the mechanism for an Ambulocetus to become the whale without any purposeful DNA manipulation from God Almighty. This is strictly done by "natural selection." Well I for one find that explanation grossly inadequate on any level for explaining how a nose breathing animal respires through a blowhole. It is not even in the ballpark of the ring evolution of the lizard, which I might point out is still a lizard, the finch, which is still a finch and so forth.
A blowhole is just a relocated nose. One can (and biologists have) examined whale embryos at various stages of development, and watched as, early in the embryo's development, nostrils develop at the front of the snout (as in typical mammals like cows or pigs), and then, as the head grows, the nostrils migrate back (one of them often being suppressed in the process) to between the eyes and then to behind and above the eyes). One can see, in fossil whale skulls from different species, stages where this process stopped at various points: whales with their nostils near the tip of their snouts, whales with the nostrils halfway between the tip of the snout and the eyes, whales with the nostrils directly between the eyes, and whales with their nostil, or nostrils, in the typical modern position. It's a standard evolutionary "trick;" modify the growth rates of different body parts relative to one another, increasing the amount of change over the course of time.
Of course, different mutations will have different effects on growth rates; some of these will be useless and some very harmful. There are advantages to a sea-dwelling animal in having its nostrils high on its head, so that it doesn't have to lift its snout clear of the water every time it wants to take a breath. So natural selection will favor mutations that change growth rates to produce that effect, rather than other effects.
Andy,
It seems to me that if the moral code was programmed into us at creation, such that all humans are supposedly aware of them by default, then the Ten Commandments was essentially a waste of time and stone (and a couple of thousand years late).
The commandment was given for the purpose of pointing out sin. If you read the book of Romans with that in mind, you will see that the point of the epistle was to help people understand the Law.
The more I hang around this site, the more I see creationists portraying God as a rather poor creator. It seems we are something of a failed experiment that He's been trying to rectify, mostly through wrath, since day one.
On the contrary, God is a great Creator. The plans and purposes of God are and always have been like a chain reaction. If He does this, this will happen, then that will happen, then that will happen to achieve a goal. One goal was to create us in His image for fellowship. Another was to use this one special important creation to defeat His enemies. For this purpose was the Son of God manifest, to destroy the works of the evil one.
Choose you this day whom you will serve. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
Vera
Uncle PT
Isn’t it interesting that despite the evolutionists claim that man has evolved over millions of years, different natures and moral codes havent evolved? Despite dramatically different environments, cultures, climates, periods of isolation and other potential selective forces man’s knowledge of right and wrong is remarkably uniform and stable.
Excellent point!! You do a great job of teaching this principle. I am enjoying reading your posts.
Vera
Stephen J
The line leading to humans split off from that leading to chimpanzees about six million years ago. Anatomically modern humans appeared about 300,000 years ago. The oldest surviving art (presumably, made by people who already had sophisticated languages) is about 100,000 years old. The oldest surviving writing (and hence, the oldest surviving descriptions of moral codes) are less than 6000 years old. So it's not that remarkable that human nature and human morals have been fairly stable for the last two to five percent of our existence. It's not clear how different environmental challenges would have selected for radically different moral senses, as long as cooperation and mutual aid would assist in meeting those challenges. In any case, until fairly recently (e.g. within the last thousand centuries) in our history, all our ancestors lived in a fairly restricted and uniform region of eastern Africa
I know you probably feel you left me speechless in that part of our discussion in terms of the various hominid groups. But the truth is that I would nearly have to write out the entire book Who was Adam? to show you the holes in this paradigm. I have been trying to think of a creative way of sharing this with you in a nutshell but so far, so bad. :-) One thing I would like to bring out though is that Fuz Rana makes the point that these finds have been dated by a technique that may be off by several thousand years called Luminescence dating. Further, the tools found with these animals were crude such as we see in modern day apes and chimps. Then when mankind comes on the scene, there is a giant leap in technology with much more sophisticated tools, musical instruments, jewelry and art.
Note that other primate species show some traces of a proto-moral sense: monkeys have been known to object to being given a cucumber slice for performing tasks once they've seen other monkeys paid with a grape (a preferred treat) for the same task. Other primates seem to show parental concern, and concern for kin. Our moral sense would seem to have been a long time in development; recorded history is a small fraction of that time.
That is one explanation but please note that God said that His invisible attributes are evidenced in nature. So is this not what we would expect from a being that is similar to us without our sense of purpose and ethic? There is no question that some animals are smarter than others and may I point out that the Bible said it first.
You seem to agree with me that morality is not simply a set of commands from God, but is rooted in our nature. You of course see that nature as created, not evolved, and find it implausible, not that we could recognize right and wrong apart from a belief in God, but that we could explain how we could even have a moral sense or recognize the difference between good and evil apart from God. I have tried to explain a possible answer; if I have failed, well, I have failed. I don't think my failure means that you have to be correct.
What about all the societies that contain the Law without ever hearing Moses' law?
Anthropologists have found that in hunter-gatherer societies, it's the old who remember where you can find food in prolonged droughts, or what it means when the game starts acting a certain weird way. Keeping old people alive and participating means keeping their hard-won experience available to the young, strong, and ignorant.
It is the right thing to do. When the Gentile, which have not the Law, do by nature those things contained in the Law, their conscience also bearing witness......
The ape-man who shared food with an aged member of the band didn't do it because he expected some payoff later, but if he got that payoff later (in the form of whatever aid that other member of the band could provide), and it helped him to have and raise children of his own, any genes that inclined him to generosity would be passed on to those children and would become more frequent.
I think in a sense, the Bible would agree with this although it doesn't always work that way. I believe part of the reason that people who are evil survive is because God knows that somewhere down the line in their lineage there will be one of His elect. So He suffers long with them for the purpose of the one. Please do not misunderstand me. I do not believe in predestination in terms of only one or two being saved. If God says that it is not His will that any should perish, then I believe we are all predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son. To me, the elect are the ones that lead the way to foster change.
So it's not actually so obvious that those who waste resources on the aged and weak are at a competitive disadvantage.
That isn't the point. The point is that many might not see that wisdom who had no sense of morality. People that live only for self gratification do not see the validity of honoring and revering someone who may be old and frail. I do not see that kind of mentality forged in this me-generation.
How often in the animal kingdom are the lame and weak allowed to be left behind? What we would predict from creatures created in the image of God?
Vera
Stephen J
The flat earth scenario
Actually, there were many church fathers that also believed in a circular earth. If you look at wikipedia, you can see this to be true as well. There are other sources. Apparently it is the universe that is flat or nearly flat. I think of the "flat earth" scenario more as a theory that was debunked and btw, that theory did not necessarily originate with the Bible.
From RTB's article entitled Facing up to the Big Bang Challenges
This fear has been reinforced more than once in history. The progress of science has seen the overturn of theory after theory through several centuries of research. It would seem, then, that theories in general cannot be trusted. More to the point, defense of a flat Earth (not necessarily by Christians) and of an Earth-centered universe, for example, as biblical teachings undermined the faith of many and salved the conscience of others when these “scientific” notions proved untrue. In truth, however, such ideas were never established scientifically. They stood on tradition and limited sensory data. Nor were such ideas established biblically, for they rested on simplistic exegesis of one or two verses. An integrative, systematic study of Scripture shows that a spherical Earth and a moving planet make a better fit with the biblical data. The sources of danger may be identified, then, as uncertain science and crude exegesis.
Regarding your argument with "Dr. Zach," and by implication with me, though, note that mitochondrial Eve has to exist, simply by virtue of the fact, as noted before, that every woman and every man has one biological mother, but many mothers have more than one biological daughter or son. Thus the number of mothers (and hence, the branching lineage of mtDNA) has to converge, as we go back in time, on one single woman (or, at any rate, on one single female-line ancestress). No one who understands this will deny that she exists, but no one who understands this will insist that mitochondrial Eve proves there was a generation in which all living people had only one living ancestress.
My point is that this evidence supports a biblical model.
I don't see the conflict between saying that the Big Bang is not part of the theory of evolution, and saying that it was a natural phenomenon. I suppose this has something to do with the widespread but erroneous creationist view that the principal idea of evolutionary theory is that "God didn't do it." The principle idea of evolutionary theory is "common descent with adaption by mutation and natural selection;" it has nothing to say on whether God had some role in that process, any more than modern meteorology has anything to say about whether God sends the rain on the just and the unjust.
Again, what I would suggest is that you go and listen to Dr. Zach's Evolution 101 and be alert for how many times he mentions "creationism" and his attempts to disprove it. So please do not tell me again that the purpose of this is not to debunk and dismantle Christianity when this is exactly what has happened and is happening. The very fact that he is somehow inclined to excuse sin is further proof of the matter. The theory of evolution has a tag along ideology. In essence, it has to because all understood truth works like a chain reaction. If this is true, then this is true, then this is true, then this is true...... I see that so clearly sometimes until I often wonder why others can't see that.
The trouble with the Coke can analogy is that, since Coke cans don't reproduce, they cannot evolve. You need to construct a Coke can all at once; you can refine a cell over myriad generations once you have some sort of replicators and heredity, however simple and crude. Natural selection is not "pure chance;" it is a combination of random generation of small variants on a starting system, coupled with the non-random survival of the ones that work best (because they can get limited recources before the others do, or avoid predators better, etc.).
Please keep in mind though that they have proven that the basic piece of DNA would require at least 250 sequences. DNA is not alive. It is no different than an organized Coke can. Now there are all sorts of theories as to how it was jump started through ionized hydrogen on diamonds, lightening etc. But the truth is that Ray's only problem is that he didn't tell us how the Coke can came to life.
My point was not that you might find it objectionable that you shared genes with a chimpanzee. On the other hand, my point wasn't just "similarity" at all. Humans share not merely genes with chimps, but many similarities in noncoding DNA, and many similarities that are not necessary for any similarity in function.
This is what we would expect from beings that are created in God's image because God took into account the many physical properties necessary for us to live amongst the viruses and bacteria present, respirate with oxygen, give out carbon dioxide, procreate etc. To me, this process makes perfect sense because the smart thing to do is to test your hypothesis through many different chain reactions and then and only then begin this process of building your special creation. The Bible states that Adam is made of things present on earth and new things.
For example, the GULO pseudogene is identically-disabled in humans and chimps (but differently disabled in guinea pigs). Again, even assuming the GULO pseudogene serves some function, we might assume that a Creator would either create all GULO pseudogenes identical (and disabled the same way), or that He would disable the genes in each species separately and in some unique way. The pattern we actually see looks like the pattern we would expect from common descent with modification, and direct inheritance from the same ancestors as chimpanzees and other primates (while guinea pigs lost their GULO gene to a separate mutation).
I wonder if the GULO gene is not dormant as opposed to "nonfunctional." The animal is starved of vitamin C for a lengthy period and somehow the GULO gene becomes active to produce enough to keep the being going until it can find a source of vitamin C. This might come in handy on say long sea voyages etc. Of course, the only way to test my theory is to starve about 3000 people for 5-6 months from vitamin C. :-)
It is the nested hierarchy of similarities and differences among living species, not just assorted "similarities," that is the principle evidence for evolution. It is strong evidence, and it implies either actual shared ancestors and normal processes of descent, inheritance, and change in populations over time, or it implies a trickster God who just wanted to make life look like the product of common descent with modification.
Nobody is challenging this fact. What we are challenging is the mechanism for which a whole new species emerged. We find the idea of natural selection et al sadly lacking as an explanation for this. But in terms of variations within a species, natural selection is perfectly acceptable as an explanation. OTOH, I still say that there was intelligence behind this. I think one of the questions that eludes atheist/evolutionists is the fact that nature seems to have a mind of her own so to speak. The animals are making choices, the microbes are making choices, the people are making cognizant choices knowing and looking far into the future. This is the idea of free will evidenced in all of nature which makes life abstract and unusual at times but yet following a pattern. This again shows the character of a Holy God.
Vera
Stephen J
In response to this lengthy post on natural causes for animal and man's evolution, I just want to say firstly that there is no real empirical evidence for one species evolving into another through natural means. What we have seen is animals that change through natural means in much the same way the African eventually gives rise to the Irish red head. All the diversity for that is contained within their genome. What we don't see over a supposed 100,000 years is homo sapien sapiens giving rise to something completely and utterly different such as X-men.
Ten dimensions. Thank you for explaining that clearer to me. I'm sure that you know, of course, that quantum physics would be so far over my head until it would be unimaginable not to mention trying to converge this theory with relativity. But I do understand the first 4 dimensions. I can get a rough idea of what is going on but it is still very rough. Isn't the law of gravity one of the dimensions? Thermodynamics?
I am in total agreement with you and always have been on how science and our understanding of the natural world must readjust with new evidence and understanding. I also understand and agree with this comment, Even straightforward observations can be wrong from time to time, which is why science puts such stress on repeatability of observations and tests, and on re-confirming observations. What I object to is that there is an idea that nothing is absolute fact as Dimensio proposed. What you are basically saying in terms of the 46 pairs of chromosomes regards a scientific fact that cannot be understood by our natural senses apart from a piece of technology such as the microscope or in this case, the electron microscope. So yes, we must be open to accepting the understanding that we could be wrong in terms of our perception of the natural world.
DNA is an organized sequence of codes that explain to the cell the way to produce proteins, if I understand this correctly. From a creation point of view, I believe that junk DNA has an unknown purpose some of which has been discovered, some has not.
I wonder and hypothesize if some DNA is not dormant much like your nylon eating bacteria. IOW, for survivability, parameters are built into the DNA to keep the species from dying under duress. When the animal finds itself in a new situation, the DNA makes adjustments to survive. It is my personal belief that sin can effect DNA which is why sin is passed down to children tapering off after 3-4 generations. This type of built in mechanism would aid in avoiding extinction, which to me seems like a problem due to the stresses placed on the earth. If I am not mistaken, extreme temperature changes cause DNA to readjust. Am I wrong?
I suspect it's because you're interested in science only as an apologetic tool, so you object to humans being classed as animals, because you think that somehow means that we ought to act "like animals," and you don't like being told that science cannot grant certainty, because that means that your favorite apologetics tool cannot grant you the certainty that you want.
I object to man being classified as an animal for one obvious reason - it leads to sin. You are not an animal. You are a man, special and important to God created in His image. Animals mate arbitrarily. Animals have no conscience about their actions at times. Animals are not aware that they are naked. When people are told they are "animals," they begin excusing all types of behavior in the name of being an "animal." Fantasy Fest is a prime example of how people act like animals in terms of nakedness and sexual perversion as is pornography. I know something you apparently forgot from long ago. There is a day of reckoning. You can call it what you will. But in truth, I know God because I was reconciled to Him when I repented of sin. Does that mean I stopped suffering? On the contrary, a born again believer suffers more in this life than anyone because they are going against the evil of this world. If you are anything like my children, the way Christians suffer is hard for a child to endure. Some of my children were able to reconcile this as important. One of my children, who is just like you, struggles.
I see science as more than apologetic tool now. I admit that I didn't at first. At first, I was only interested in learning these things to help you. But when I discovered how the known facts help me to understand God, I got really excited about learning this stuff. When I went out on a limb to help you and believe me, it was a huge limb, I received more than I have ever given out. I feel like for the first time in my life, I finally understand the message that God has shared with mankind. I think I know why He created us. I think I understand the purpose for being created, why we fell, and what that will accomplish. I know a God now that is purposeful and meticulous and truly long suffering. I understand now how much He loves free will in all of creation. God creates beings that can choose. I understand what the Law is for and how that can lead you to understand your sin. I understand why God Almighty loved us so much to take our sin upon Himself to defeat satan once and for all.
What was really fun to me was taking the giant leap and listening to Evolution 101. You have no idea how scary that was for me. What if he says something that I know not what? :-) But then I see the obvious agenda, ideology, misinformation, and long-stretch conclusions. It's like watching the YEC speak to audiences of Christians who are trying to learn something so that they have the necessary answers when their faith comes into question only this is the faith of atheism in this case. As you probably know by now, it is easy for the scientists of our day to shoot down those things.
I do believe that there are natural processes involved in some changes within a species. Let me ask you a question? Is there say one cat that resembles Mitochondrial Eve? IOW, the genome of all known cats would be easily traced back to one cat type like the African in East Africa? Is there a Mitochondrial Eve in terms of horses? Is there a Mitochondrial Eve in terms of anything where one species contains all the diversity necessary to create the rest? Are we only looking at those 47 pairs of chromosomes or are we digging deeper to make sure we understand the truth?
Vera
Andy replied to me
Hmmm, so you have proof of this "knowledge" I guess? I mean, right back to "first man" - and, of course, I mean other than scripture?
My point was that simply listing mans misadventures does not show that he does not know right and wrong. I suspect that even atheists who have their own moral code break it occasionally. There is a difference between knowledge and behaviour.
I think that there is good evidence to support my assertion that there is a universal knowledge of right and wrong which conforms to the Ten Commandments and is not predicted by evolution. Adultery is wrong yet I cant think of a more efficient way of powerful, strong, intelligent, compassionate (add any trait which you think could be favoured by natural selection) genes being passed on to the next generation.
Blogger Jason said...
forgiven37 said:
Hello Jason, at least you responded Matt D seems to be afraid to address anyone except for Ray. The only thing I smell is chicken
Maybe you just need to explain to him how important you are!
thanks for another response wow two on one post. progress I say. anyway Matt D is nothing but someone seeking attention. he would never bother with anyone that isn't on tv or in the news. so I'll keep on spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ to anyone who will listen. thanks for your time.
Verandoug replied to me:
In response to this lengthy post on natural causes for animal and man's evolution, I just want to say firstly that there is no real empirical evidence for one species evolving into another through natural means. What we have seen is animals that change through natural means in much the same way the African eventually gives rise to the Irish red head. All the diversity for that is contained within their genome. What we don't see over a supposed 100,000 years is homo sapien sapiens giving rise to something completely and utterly different such as X-men.
Given that speciation (as biologists define and recognize "species") has been observed a number of times, I wonder if you are using some nonstandard, "Ray Comfortable" definition of "species." But I seem to recall you questioning whether even a zebra and a horse could evolve from a common ancestor in three million years or so, so perhaps you do have the standard definition of "species" in mind. If so, as I said, it's been observed several times, in both plants and animals.
There is no reason to suppose that all the genetic diversity of modern humans was present in the original human population, and some reason to suppose otherwise (e.g. there was a recent paper tracing the allele for blue eyes back to a single mutation within the last ten thousand years; quite a number of other alleles specific to a small area or limited population are known). In bacteria, of course, it is easy to set up "monoclonal" colonies (all genetically identical) and observe new mutations arise.
Many biologists wince when popular culture gets ahold of ideas from evolutionary theory; they hardly ever get it right. Useful mutations are not expected to produce striking novel abilities or structures in one stroke; beneficial mutations generally produce small benefits which can be built upon by subsequent beneficial mutations. Because beneficial mutations tend to spread through the population, the new alleles will occur in many individuals, so that they can occur together with many new mutations (so that if any new mutation improves the adaption, it can be selected, even if most new mutations do nothing to help or even if they cause harm).
In general, evolutionists do not expect a species to evolve into "something completely different" in a thousand centuries (I'm assuming, here, that polar bears aren't "completely different" from brown bears, and that Homo erectus isn't "completely different" from H. sapiens).
Ten dimensions. Thank you for explaining that clearer to me. I'm sure that you know, of course, that quantum physics would be so far over my head until it would be unimaginable not to mention trying to converge this theory with relativity. But I do understand the first 4 dimensions. I can get a rough idea of what is going on but it is still very rough. Isn't the law of gravity one of the dimensions? Thermodynamics?
Gravity is a force, not a dimension. The "law of gravity" is an equation describing how the force works. Thermodynamics is the science of, basically, how heat works; it's not a dimension either. The extra dimensions of string theory or other "theories of everything" are not forces, or energies, or laws of nature; they are simply directions in space, like "height," "width," or "length."
The extra spatial dimensions of advanced cosmological theories have the same relationship to our visible three spatial dimensions that, say, the dimension of height has to the two dimensions of a flat horizontal surface: they're just directions that are perpedicular to all three spatial dimensions we can see. It's very hard to imagine, but it can be described mathematically.
I am in total agreement with you and always have been on how science and our understanding of the natural world must readjust with new evidence and understanding. I also understand and agree with this comment, Even straightforward observations can be wrong from time to time, which is why science puts such stress on repeatability of observations and tests, and on re-confirming observations. What I object to is that there is an idea that nothing is absolute fact as Dimensio proposed. What you are basically saying in terms of the 46 pairs of chromosomes regards a scientific fact that cannot be understood by our natural senses apart from a piece of technology such as the microscope or in this case, the electron microscope. So yes, we must be open to accepting the understanding that we could be wrong in terms of our perception of the natural world.
I think there's a subtle (perhaps too subtle) distinction between "nothing is absolute fact" and "science cannot provide perfect proof that any statement actually is an absolute fact."
DNA is an organized sequence of codes that explain to the cell the way to produce proteins, if I understand this correctly. From a creation point of view, I believe that junk DNA has an unknown purpose some of which has been discovered, some has not.
DNA is a sequence of bases or codons (a "codon" is a sequence of three bases: the possible bases are adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine). Three of the 64 possible codons are "stop" codons, indicated the end of a gene; the other 61 codons correspond to amino acids used to build proteins. Since most living things use only 20 different amino acids, each amino acid can be represented by any of two to six different codons. This is how one can get situations such as this: if you compare the actual genes for the enzyme cytochrome-c in humans and chimpanzees, there is a small difference in one codon between the two species, but the actual enzymes are identical: a codon which codes for a particular amino acid has been replaced with a different codon that codes for the exact same amino acid.
The "genetic code" is the list of codons and the different amino acids they correspond to. The "code" is not the same thing as a "codon" (a set of three nucleotides or bases), nor is it the same thing as the "genome" (all the DNA on one complete set of chromosomes).
As I noted, there have been experiments in which biologists have deleted large swaths of noncoding DNA, and have found that this makes no difference to the developing embryo or adult animal. This suggests that if all "junk" DNA has a function, some of those functions must be very subtle or trivial indeed.
I wonder and hypothesize if some DNA is not dormant much like your nylon eating bacteria. IOW, for survivability, parameters are built into the DNA to keep the species from dying under duress. When the animal finds itself in a new situation, the DNA makes adjustments to survive. It is my personal belief that sin can effect DNA which is why sin is passed down to children tapering off after 3-4 generations. This type of built in mechanism would aid in avoiding extinction, which to me seems like a problem due to the stresses placed on the earth. If I am not mistaken, extreme temperature changes cause DNA to readjust. Am I wrong?
Novel abilities, in bacterial colonies, typically arise only in some colonies and not in others, even when they are exposed to identical conditions. This, even apart from genetic sequencing which has been done for some mutations, strongly suggests that these novel traits don't arise from "dormant" genes but from altered genes. Experiments with bacteria have shown that under stress, some bacteria increase their mutation rate (this has to do with more powerful error-correction enzymes being destroyed or disabled, and weaker, less effective ones taking over). This increases the chance of a beneficial mutation, simply because all mutations (neutral, harmful, or beneficial) become more common. Because harmful mutations become more common, a lot of bacteria die, but then, in stressful conditions, a lot of bacteria tend to die anyway.
You might be interested in a book on this very subject (and related subjects) by Carl Zimmer, called Microcosm, about the role E. coli has played in scientific research.
I'm not sure how sin is supposed to alter DNA. It's rather hard to reconcile with the researches of August Weismann in the late 19th century, which revealed very significant barriers to the inheritance of acquired characteristics. I can think of ways several different sins might affect one's descendants, but very few of them involve biological inheritance and none of them involve changes to the DNA.
I object to man being classified as an animal for one obvious reason - it leads to sin. You are not an animal. You are a man, special and important to God created in His image. Animals mate arbitrarily. Animals have no conscience about their actions at times. Animals are not aware that they are naked. When people are told they are "animals," they begin excusing all types of behavior in the name of being an "animal." Fantasy Fest is a prime example of how people act like animals in terms of nakedness and sexual perversion as is pornography. I know something you apparently forgot from long ago. There is a day of reckoning. You can call it what you will. But in truth, I know God because I was reconciled to Him when I repented of sin. Does that mean I stopped suffering? On the contrary, a born again believer suffers more in this life than anyone because they are going against the evil of this world. If you are anything like my children, the way Christians suffer is hard for a child to endure. Some of my children were able to reconcile this as important. One of my children, who is just like you, struggles.
I never realized that the Linnaean system of classification led to people running around naked in Key West. One lives and learns.
I do believe that there are natural processes involved in some changes within a species. Let me ask you a question? Is there say one cat that resembles Mitochondrial Eve? IOW, the genome of all known cats would be easily traced back to one cat type like the African in East Africa? Is there a Mitochondrial Eve in terms of horses? Is there a Mitochondrial Eve in terms of anything where one species contains all the diversity necessary to create the rest? Are we only looking at those 47 pairs of chromosomes or are we digging deeper to make sure we understand the truth?
In principle, for every sexually-reproducing species on Earth, there is a "mitochondrial Eve" (though not every such species has a "Y-chromosome Adam," because they use different methods of sex-determination; the species would have a last male-line common ancestor, but there might be no way to trace where it lived). This would be true even if thousands of individuals of that species were specially created at once (note: this assumes that "coalescence" has taken place, and that every member of that original population is the ancestor of either all living members of the species, or no living member of the species).
I'm not sure anyone is as interested in tracing back mitochondrial lineages for cats, horses, etc. as they are for humans. Note that the point of tracing mitochondrial DNA is that it all comes from one parent; if you try to trace other sorts of DNA you end up dealing with genes that are inherited from several different lineages in a tangled pattern (you have, after all, two parents, four grandparents, and so on back: in principle, you could have inherited genes from great-to-the-tenth grandparents on five different continents). Usually, it's enough to just check for genetic diversity in local populations: the ones with greatest variation are the oldest (because basically, you're counting the mutations that have popped up since the population was founded).
vera, I realize that many early church fathers accepted that the Earth was a sphere; I was merely amused that one of the few who rejected the idea nonetheless thought that the days of creation might not be literal 24-hour days.
The point I wished to make about mitochondrial Eve is that her existence does not support the Biblical model against an evolutionary model. It does show that all living humans share common ancestry, which is contrary to a few versions of creationism that rather torture the texts to support an extreme version of racism, but evolutionary theory and the Biblical account agree that humans share a common ancestor with one another.
Creationism is not the same thing as Christianity, although there is overlap. There are Christian evolutionists, and there are Muslim, Hindu, and assorted minor varieties of creationism (and of course there are several different flavors of Christian creationism). Debunking creationism is not quite the same thing as debunking Christianity.
Ray's analogy was between a Coke can and a banana, not a Coke can and some primordial self-replicating system. The most primitive life form is not thought to be a banana. Indeed, he most primitive life form is widely thought to be a very crude, RNA-based system that barely qualified as "life."
You seem to have a somewhat unconventional picture of God: on the one hand, as an Experimenter who has to base new designs on old designs because, apparently, He's not sure how something designed completely from scratch would work. That's not quite the omniscient, omnipotent God of traditional Christian theology. On the other hand, perhaps such a God makes more sense, in light of the Fall and His apparently rather circuitous route to save His creation from it.
The experiment you describe, to see if the GULO pseudogene might spring into action if it were needed badly enough, was done a couple of centuries ago by a government institution called the "Royal Navy." They ended up with a bunch of sailors dead from scurvy until they figured out that human beings need something (they didn't know yet that it was vitamin C) added to their diet (for the Royal Navy, it came in the form of lime juice, hence the term "limeys" for British sailors). Whatever the GULO pseudogene might do, it doesn't enable us to make vitamin C (though it was a good guess that a gene might be inactive when it is not needed: many genes in fact have been discovered to behave that way, but again, some have been discovered to just sit there and accumulate random mutations).
Jason said to me
My beliefs about God are all based on faith. My positions about natural history are based on evidence.
Give me an example of your evidence and I'll be happy to show you the faith that underpins it. In return I'll happily show you the evidence that underpins my faith.
Jason and UnclePT
I have spent my entire life seeking after truth, and the journey has taken me away from Young Earth Creationism.
I agree. I commend people for seeking the truth and standing behind the Word of God. But this movement, imvho, has done more to tear down the faith of this generation than even evolution because young people who sincerely believe in and trust in God try to defend their faith with this stuff such as a vapor canopy that causes the earth to appear older than it is, and they are quickly shot down with obvious truth such as gravity cannot allow for this. When I saw what was happening, I nearly cried because these folks are sincere and love God but they are doing more harm than good. In addition, to arrive at the truth, it is like you have to do all these untestable contortions. See, the reality of this world plus the Bible has always been a great point to me that there are statements in the Bible that are proven scientifically that only a Creator could know. But if we test it one way and it doesn't match what we think it is saying and we therefore declare that it must be something that is untestable, this does not fit God's heart that says to prove all things. As I said in another post, that was what hit it over the centerfield fence for both my husband and me. If God had created this earth in 6 twenty-four hour days and we see that star out there knowing that light travels at a speed that is testable and we have to suggest that God put the light here supernaturally so that it appears old when in fact it is actually only a few thousand years old, then that means God is deceiving us and God just flat out doesn't operate that way. He is Truth.
I had heard Hugh Ross's testimony many years ago but had never investigated his work mostly because I wasn't sharing my faith. Then I started looking into this. I think the timing was right as well because they have come out with some excellent books lately. The best part of it is that my understanding of who God is has grown tremendously not because of Hugh Ross but from a myriad of truths that are coming together. If you want to know more truth, just start sharing your faith and testifying of God's greatness to set you free from sin through the blood of Jesus. Wow.
--plink, plink--
Vera
forgiven37 said:
thanks for another response wow two on one post. progress I say.
Here's a third reply for absolutely free.
UnclePT said:
Give me an example of your evidence and I'll be happy to show you the faith that underpins it. In return I'll happily show you the evidence that underpins my faith.
One example of evidence is Tiktaalik. I really would love to know about the evidence that underpins your faith.
Stephen J
A blowhole is just a relocated nose. One can (and biologists have) examined whale embryos at various stages of development, and watched as, early in the embryo's development, nostrils develop at the front of the snout (as in typical mammals like cows or pigs), and then, as the head grows, the nostrils migrate back (one of them often being suppressed in the process) to between the eyes and then to behind and above the eyes). One can see, in fossil whale skulls from different species, stages where this process stopped at various points: whales with their nostils near the tip of their snouts, whales with the nostrils halfway between the tip of the snout and the eyes, whales with the nostrils directly between the eyes, and whales with their nostil, or nostrils, in the typical modern position. It's a standard evolutionary "trick;" modify the growth rates of different body parts relative to one another, increasing the amount of change over the course of time.
Of course, different mutations will have different effects on growth rates; some of these will be useless and some very harmful. There are advantages to a sea-dwelling animal in having its nostrils high on its head, so that it doesn't have to lift its snout clear of the water every time it wants to take a breath. So natural selection will favor mutations that change growth rates to produce that effect, rather than other effects.
I think I already commented on this from a different post. But yes, fetal development is probably the only place in nature that we see "evolution." However, I must be quick to point out that these animals mate with each other because of the fact that they are alike and fetal development is not a precursor to mutations. The little whale fetus would hardly survive outside the womb with a blowhole in front of its eyes. I would be more inclined to believe that a species could grow an appendage than a different form of respiration given the fact that respiration is unequivocally essential for life.
Interestingly, like animals are attracted to each other and what they produce is not unlike itself although there can be variations in size, color, etc depending on the diversity within the DNA of the original parent DNA, if I understand this correctly. IOW, in the simplest of terms the pea plant will not produce a tall pea planet say >6 ft. if the coding for such a characteristic is not within its genome.
I realize that the blowhole is its nose. Why would I mention respiration otherwise? :-) While you could surely fill in the blanks by suggesting that genetics and natural altercations explain how the nasal breathing animal eventually became the blowhole breathing animal complete with resonance chamber, I find natural selection to be an inadequate explanation for this phenomenon. It would require billions of generations to accomplish. Whales are unlike microbes in that they do not produce offspring quickly. There simply is not enough time to produce these changes naturally. Now, to me, what I see happening is that we look microscopically at the DNA strands and see that there are similarities in various species but that more ORGANIZED coding is added on to what was there previously.
From Creation as Science pg. 141-142
Racing the Clock: Speciations and Extinctions
Every species of life gradually changes over time through mutations and natural selection. But a species can evolve into a distinctly different species only if it can naturally select a sufficient number of beneficial mutations before being driven to extinction. What drives a species to extinction is a combination of accumulated harmful mutations, physical changes in its environment, reproductive failures, and competitions from other species sharing the same habitat. Changes in the physical environment that would have threatened species with extinction (and still do) include a declining rotation rate of Earth, increasing solar luminosity, changes in tidal patterns, changing chemical composition of Earth's atmosphere, changing biodeposits, nearby supernova eruptions, nearby gamma-ray burst events, asteroid and comet collisions, solar flaring, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, devastating storms, wildfires, climate cycles, and changes in ocean and air currents.
Therefore, every species races an evolutionary clock. Can a species survive long enough to change through naturally selected beneficial mutations before the onslaught of deleterious mutations and environmental stresses wipes it out? Certain characteristics determine the odds of a particular species' winning the mutational race against extinction:
Population size
Average body size
Average generation span (time between birth and the capacity to give birth)
Abundance, variety, longevity, and stability of food sources
Average number of progeny per adult
Level of parental care and training required for independence
Duration of parental care and training required for independence
Complexity of morphology
Complexity of biochemistry
Protein-to body-mass ration
Metabolic rate
Hibernation and aestivation (summer dormancy or torpor) level
Average life span
Habitat size
Ecological diversity of habitat
Complexity of social structures
Complexity of symbiotic relationship with other species
Biologists observe that deleterious mutations outnumber beneficial mutations by at least as much as 10,000 to 1, and in some species by as much as 10,000,000 to 1. Thus, the hope of winning any kind of evolutionary race seems extremely dim for the vast majority of species.
Crude models outline the approximate requirements for mutational advance (as opposed to extinction). Direct field observations by biologists reveal significant real-time evolutionary advance for several viral and bacterial species. Among ant and termite species with populations of more than a quadrillion individuals, advance remains debatable. For animal species numbering less than a quadrillion individuals, with average body sizes larger than one centimeter and generation time greater than three months, biologist have yet to observe any significant evolutionary change other than extinctions.
Significant evolutionary change is here defined as generating a new species that under no circumstances can be made to interbreed with the species from which it arose. Roughly, if the evolutionary limits statement above are valid, biologists should be discovering new bacterial species at a rate that roughly equals or exceeds on per year. And yet, during the past 150 years of research, biologist have failed to observe - in real time- the emergence of even one truly one bacterial species. Such an observational failure implies that the evolutionary limits stated here are not severe enough.
The calculated and observed limits for evolutionary advance imply that invertebrate species cannot, by Darwinian processes alone, give rise to any of the vertebrate species -fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. Some level of divine interventions must have been involved, whether some interruptive manufacture of manipulation of the natural components of life (transformations miracles) or outright miraculous acts (transcendent miracles) or some combinations of the two. With respect to emergence of soulish (birds and mammals) and spiritual characteristics (humans) outright miraculous acts would appear to be required.
When environmental hazards -competition from other species, solar luminosity's continual increase, changes in the chemical composition of Earth's atmosphere, nearby supernova eruptions, deadly gamma-ray bursts, asteroid and comet collisions, solar flares, volcanic eruptions, climate changes, severe storms, and so forth - are factored in, naturalism's odds for progression become even slimmer. All these hazards have contributed significantly to the elimination of species and even of whole phyla from the face of the Earth well before human activity began to impact the environment.
The RTB creation model offers an explanation for this enigma of the fossil record: Speciation and extinction remained roughly balanced before the appearance of human beings. Then speciation suddenly ended, becoming overwhelmed by extinctions after humans arrived -even apart from human encroachment or abuse. According to Genesis 1, the Creator actively and purposefully built life's diversity as part of the preparation for humanity (in six "days." or eras, of creation), but once humans arrived, He ceased making new kinds of life and no longer replaced extinct life-forms (once the seventh day, or era of rest came). He assigned humanity the task of managing Earth's living creatures as well as its life-sustaining resources.
My husband also likes to make the point that there was never an evening and morning on the 7th day, meaning we are still in the day of rest. But God will begin creating again after this time period is over.
Vera
Wow Vera, I totally agree. YECism definitely does a lot of harm to Christianity. That's why I come here.
Steven J said to me:
I'm not sure what you mean by the distinction between "right" and "acceptable."
I would say that “right” is an absolute term like “true” whilst acceptable is a relative term. Your point about slavery is interesting. Man forever wrestles with right and wrong, he philosophises, cogitates, argues, prevaricates, debates, comes up with new ideas, goes back to the old ones and in the end goes round in circles.But still enduring and overshadowing everything are the Ten Commandments. Who disagrees with no’s 4-10? Do you? They don’t make evolutionary sense and are not predicted by the theory but they do for some reason strike a chord deep within us. We know in our hearts they are right (if you don’t tell me which ones you disagree with) but we also know we cant keep them so we have to disregard no’s 1-3 because God who will hold us accountable is explicit in them. I am sure Ray is right, the Commandments that show Gods hatred of sin are rejected because of our love for it. That was certainly the case for me.
I think that many people get confused between the Commandments which are for all people for all time and the Law as it applied to the nation of Israel. God’s covenant with Abraham was that the Messiah would come from his descendents (the nation of Israel). His Law was necessary to preserve Israel in the face of a hostile pagan culture so that the line of the Messaih was protected (and it worked). For this reason, though we can learn much from it, the Law doesn’t necessarily apply to us today.
Verandoug replied to me:
I think I already commented on this from a different post. But yes, fetal development is probably the only place in nature that we see "evolution." However, I must be quick to point out that these animals mate with each other because of the fact that they are alike and fetal development is not a precursor to mutations. The little whale fetus would hardly survive outside the womb with a blowhole in front of its eyes. I would be more inclined to believe that a species could grow an appendage than a different form of respiration given the fact that respiration is unequivocally essential for life.
Thank you for your reply.
Fetal development is not evolution. On the other hand, changes in fetal development are what evolution produces. Here's the point: in more primitive whales, whale fetuses reached full term before the nostrils had migrated behind the eyes. As I pointed out, we can tell this because fossil whales have been found with the nostrils at various positions from the tip of the snout to above and behind the eyes.
I'm not sure what "a different form of respiration" has to do with whale evolution; they breathe through nostrils and have lungs like other mammals. Now, fish have a different form of respiration: except for lungfish, bony fish have nostrils but use them only for smelling; they can't breathe through them (lungfish, like tetrapods, have a connection between the nostrils and the throat and lungs). And it's been a long time since a species has grown an entirely novel appendage; so far as I know, since the Cambrian they've modified already-existing appendages, as lungfish modified already-existing nostrils and lungs, and as whales modified an already-existing mammalian respiratory system.
Interestingly, like animals are attracted to each other and what they produce is not unlike itself although there can be variations in size, color, etc depending on the diversity within the DNA of the original parent DNA, if I understand this correctly. IOW, in the simplest of terms the pea plant will not produce a tall pea planet say >6 ft. if the coding for such a characteristic is not within its genome.
Strictly speaking, I'm pretty sure you're wrong: the phenotype (appearance, anatomy, and behavior) of an organism is the expression of its genotype (complete set of genes) in a given environment. Change the environment, and you change the phenotype even if the genes are unchanged: duplicate the chemical signals that the allele for tall pea plants produces, and you should be able to turn a plant with alleles for shortness into a tall plant.
But that's just a technical quibble. Mutations can create new alleles and new variation within a population. That there are no alleles for six-foot pea plants in a particular population is no reason to suppose that there never will be such alleles.
I realize that the blowhole is its nose. Why would I mention respiration otherwise? :-) While you could surely fill in the blanks by suggesting that genetics and natural altercations explain how the nasal breathing animal eventually became the blowhole breathing animal complete with resonance chamber, I find natural selection to be an inadequate explanation for this phenomenon. It would require billions of generations to accomplish. Whales are unlike microbes in that they do not produce offspring quickly. There simply is not enough time to produce these changes naturally. Now, to me, what I see happening is that we look microscopically at the DNA strands and see that there are similarities in various species but that more ORGANIZED coding is added on to what was there previously.
I assumed you mentioned respiration because both blowholes and noses are used for respiration; that insight doesn't require a realization that the former is just a modified form of the latter. Whales spent about 20 million years evolving (or, if you prefer, the fossil record shows a gradual modification of the cetacean body plan from fully terrestrial quadruped to fully aquatic with no hind limbs); that's not billions of generations, but it's three or four million generations, and enough time for a succession of dozens of species. Your statement that it would take "billions" of generations will need some more support than your own incredulity that changes to growth rates of different body parts during embryonic development could do most of the work.
From Creation as Science pg. 141-142
Racing the Clock: Speciations and Extinctions
Every species of life gradually changes over time through mutations and natural selection. But a species can evolve into a distinctly different species only if it can naturally select a sufficient number of beneficial mutations before being driven to extinction. What drives a species to extinction is a combination of accumulated harmful mutations, physical changes in its environment, reproductive failures, and competitions from other species sharing the same habitat. Changes in the physical environment that would have threatened species with extinction (and still do) include a declining rotation rate of Earth, increasing solar luminosity, changes in tidal patterns, changing chemical composition of Earth's atmosphere, changing biodeposits, nearby supernova eruptions, nearby gamma-ray burst events, asteroid and comet collisions, solar flaring, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, devastating storms, wildfires, climate cycles, and changes in ocean and air currents.
Quite frequently, one population of a species will evolve into a new species (if not a "distinctly different species") while other populations remain unchanged. Even for very large changes, one branch of the family tree may remain primitive (and well-adapted to its original environment) while other branches are modified to fit new environments. Of course, a lot of species end up going extinct (as one wit put it, "to a first approximation, all species are extinct;" to a second approximation, only about 99% of all the species that have ever lived are extinct).
Therefore, every species races an evolutionary clock. Can a species survive long enough to change through naturally selected beneficial mutations before the onslaught of deleterious mutations and environmental stresses wipes it out? Certain characteristics determine the odds of a particular species' winning the mutational race against extinction:
Natural selection is constantly weeding deleterious mutations out. Does Ross have some reason to suppose that individuals with deleterious mutations tend, in fact, to have myriad descendants and spread those harmful alleles through the population? The most sense I can make of his bizarre assertion is that he's thinking of Haldane's Dilemma, a limit to the number of beneficial mutations that can be fixed in a particular number of generations. The trouble for his argument is that this number, over three million generations or more, is "a lot of beneficial mutations."
Whenever a creationist starts talking about "species," I start wondering what, if anything, he means by the term. You've seen Ray's "definition;" I suspect (but am not sure) that Ross has a more conventional definition. But that raises a problem for his argument: there are a lot of species, and at any one time, most of them will have closely related species that are not "distinctly different" (that is, if we're talking about a pakicetid proto-whale, the closely related species will also be pakicetid proto-whales). The odds against any single one of them winning the "race against extinction" needs to be multiplied by the number of species engaged in the race.
Population size
Average body size
Average generation span (time between birth and the capacity to give birth)
Abundance, variety, longevity, and stability of food sources
Average number of progeny per adult
Level of parental care and training required for independence
Duration of parental care and training required for independence
Complexity of morphology
Complexity of biochemistry
Protein-to body-mass ration
Metabolic rate
Hibernation and aestivation (summer dormancy or torpor) level
Average life span
Habitat size
Ecological diversity of habitat
Complexity of social structures
Complexity of symbiotic relationship with other species
Given that there are organisms of a wide range of body sizes, generation time, level of parental care, ability to hibernate, etc., I don't see how any of these traits can "determine" the chances of survival. I think Ross has just listed a bunch of traits in hopes of making it look as if he's presenting a serious argument here.
Biologists observe that deleterious mutations outnumber beneficial mutations by at least as much as 10,000 to 1, and in some species by as much as 10,000,000 to 1. Thus, the hope of winning any kind of evolutionary race seems extremely dim for the vast majority of species.
Does he give a source for those figures, and some sort of context for them? For that matter, since a mutation that is beneficial in one environment may be detrimental in another, and neutral in a third, do these figures not vary with environments as well? I don't trust that "ten million to one" figure, especially, but in any case, as noted above, "the vast majority of species" do indeed "lose the evolutionary race" in time; the species alive at any given time are descended from a small fraction of the species alive at some earlier time.
Crude models outline the approximate requirements for mutational advance (as opposed to extinction). Direct field observations by biologists reveal significant real-time evolutionary advance for several viral and bacterial species. Among ant and termite species with populations of more than a quadrillion individuals, advance remains debatable. For animal species numbering less than a quadrillion individuals, with average body sizes larger than one centimeter and generation time greater than three months, biologist have yet to observe any significant evolutionary change other than extinctions.
"Biologists have yet to observe?" I think all he's saying here is that no one has observed, in a couple of centuries of fieldwork (with no single series of observations stretching over more than a few decades) evolution on a scale that is expected (on the basis of either models or the fossil record) to take millions of years. That's an argument worthy of a young-earth creationist, who'd be less pretentious in phrasing it.
Significant evolutionary change is here defined as generating a new species that under no circumstances can be made to interbreed with the species from which it arose. Roughly, if the evolutionary limits statement above are valid, biologists should be discovering new bacterial species at a rate that roughly equals or exceeds on per year. And yet, during the past 150 years of research, biologist have failed to observe - in real time- the emergence of even one truly one bacterial species. Such an observational failure implies that the evolutionary limits stated here are not severe enough.
Well, that's an interesting (not to say unreasonable) definition of "significant evolutionary change." By that standard, if someone managed to breed tigers from lions, or zebras from horses, that would not be "significant evolutionary change," because they are still capable of limited interbreeding. And I'm not sure how Ross proposes to apply his standard to the bacteria he uses as an example: bacteria don't reproduce sexually, but they do exchange genes with other bacteria, and they do so across what are usually regarded as species lines. Furthermore, "species" in bacteria are weird anyway: Escherichia coli is treated as a single species, but exists in scores of known strains, and only about 40% of its genes are shared across all known strains of E. coli. That's about the degree of genetic similarity you share with, say, a sea urchin. E. coli differ in size, somewhat in shape, and in possession or lack of their famed flagellum. And most bacteria (unlike the various strains called E. coli are very hard to raise and study in the lab. That new bacterial species are not discovered every year may reflect the difficulty of defining and identifying bacterial species rather than any difficulties bacteria have in evolving.
The calculated and observed limits for evolutionary advance imply that invertebrate species cannot, by Darwinian processes alone, give rise to any of the vertebrate species -fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. Some level of divine interventions must have been involved, whether some interruptive manufacture of manipulation of the natural components of life (transformations miracles) or outright miraculous acts (transcendent miracles) or some combinations of the two. With respect to emergence of soulish (birds and mammals) and spiritual characteristics (humans) outright miraculous acts would appear to be required.
Ross is a physicist. Actual biologists, as I've mentioned before, see evolution acting more than fast enough to account for the degree and speed of change observed in the fossil record, assuming that the "tree of life" represents an actual tree of descent. Even were Ross right, he would have shown only that some currently unknown cause was necessary to explain the observed complexity and diversity of life; he would not be justified in assuming either that common descent was not correct or that it needed supernatural rather than unknown natural causes to produce. He's invoking a "god of the gaps" argument, and I'm far from convinced that he's identified actual gaps into which to stuff that God.
UnclePT replied to me:
I would say that “right” is an absolute term like “true” whilst acceptable is a relative term. Your point about slavery is interesting. Man forever wrestles with right and wrong, he philosophises, cogitates, argues, prevaricates, debates, comes up with new ideas, goes back to the old ones and in the end goes round in circles.But still enduring and overshadowing everything are the Ten Commandments. Who disagrees with no’s 4-10? Do you?
Did Paul? Unless you are using the Roman Catholic enumeration of the commandments, number four is "honor the Sabbath day and keep it holy." Paul did not seem to regard it as an important matter whether Christians observed the Sabbath or not (and commanded them not to neglect meeting and worshiping in groups, but made no mention of observing any particular day on which to do so).
If you are, on the other hand, making Sabbath observance commandment three (and splitting covetnessness into two commandments), then no, I do not disagree with the commandments.
They don’t make evolutionary sense and are not predicted by the theory but they do for some reason strike a chord deep within us. We know in our hearts they are right (if you don’t tell me which ones you disagree with) but we also know we cant keep them so we have to disregard no’s 1-3 because God who will hold us accountable is explicit in them. I am sure Ray is right, the Commandments that show Gods hatred of sin are rejected because of our love for it. That was certainly the case for me.
Evolutionary theory has the problem that evolution is a very complex, even "chaotic" process ("chaotic" in the sense of "not random, but not predictable in detail either, because very dependent on fine differences in initial conditions). The theory lets us predict patterns of data, but rarely the actual details of the data. So it does not actually predict a species that universally approves the "second tablet" commandments.
On the other hand, again, we live in groups and we benefit from living in groups. The "second tablet" commandments all serve to smooth social relations and prevent behaviors that weaken or destroy the group; I would think this makes sense in evolutionary terms.
I think that many people get confused between the Commandments which are for all people for all time and the Law as it applied to the nation of Israel. God’s covenant with Abraham was that the Messiah would come from his descendants (the nation of Israel). His Law was necessary to preserve Israel in the face of a hostile pagan culture so that the line of the Messiah was protected (and it worked). For this reason, though we can learn much from it, the Law doesn’t necessarily apply to us today.
vera, I realize that many early church fathers accepted that the Earth was a sphere; I was merely amused that one of the few who rejected the idea nonetheless thought that the days of creation might not be literal 24-hour days.
i c. That makes sense. I think that if you were watching a ship sail away, you would have to notice that it eventually is gone from the horizon. If the ship comes back, that would probably make one think that the person did not fall off the flat earth. I mean, men do have a way of reasoning through those types of things even if they aren't a Galileo etc.
The point I wished to make about mitochondrial Eve is that her existence does not support the Biblical model against an evolutionary model. It does show that all living humans share common ancestry, which is contrary to a few versions of creationism that rather torture the texts to support an extreme version of racism, but evolutionary theory and the Biblical account agree that humans share a common ancestor with one another.
If I am not mistaken, the point is that mtDNA Eve supports the biblical model which is further proof that the biblical model fits.
Creationism is not the same thing as Christianity, although there is overlap. There are Christian evolutionists, and there are Muslim, Hindu, and assorted minor varieties of creationism (and of course there are several different flavors of Christian creationism). Debunking creationism is not quite the same thing as debunking Christianity.
I am discovering yes that theistic evolution and many other forms of creation are in the mix. One of the things RTB did in the back of Creation as Science was to make a table of their model and in each point they compared it to the theistic model, YEC model and the evolutionist model.
Ray's analogy was between a Coke can and a banana, not a Coke can and some primordial self-replicating system. The most primitive life form is not thought to be a banana. Indeed, he most primitive life form is widely thought to be a very crude, RNA-based system that barely qualified as "life."
Is there any evidence for RNA in the rock strata prior to the formation of microbes? Because as I understood it, there is no carbonaceous material there.
There are some great articles on RTB. I will put links to them on my blog. This one paragraph though says what I'm trying to say.
Origin-of-life researchers have recently uncovered unequivocal evidence that life first appeared early in Earth history, shortly after the formation of the first rocks.20-23 The oldest rocks yet discovered on Earth date at around 3.9 billion years old. Prior to this time, the earth existed largely in a molten state unsuitable for life. Researchers have identified carbonaceous deposits—deposits made up of carbon compounds such as kerogen tars, graphite and apatite—from the earth’s oldest rocks, dated at 3.86 billion years old. The chemical signature of these carbonaceous deposits indicates that they were produced as the by-product of biological activity. Fully consistent with the discovery of life’s by-products from 3.86 billion years ago is the discovery of fossilized bacteria in rocks about 3.5 billion years old.24, 25
You seem to have a somewhat unconventional picture of God: on the one hand, as an Experimenter who has to base new designs on old designs because, apparently, He's not sure how something designed completely from scratch would work. That's not quite the omniscient, omnipotent God of traditional Christian theology. On the other hand, perhaps such a God makes more sense, in light of the Fall and His apparently rather circuitous route to save His creation from it.
That is my theory but RTB believes the hominids were placed on the earth to help the animal acclimate to humans. Apparently, the statistics are fairly convincing that wherever there were hominids, the animals did not go extinct as quickly.
This caricature of God above is too human and seemingly incompetent. God proclaims that that His "foolishness" is wiser than man. That tells me that whatever we may think or judge, what seems to be foolish to us contains a great deal of wisdom. This representation is like a Being that has no abilities but to guess. I don't think God "guesses." He is simply careful. He takes into consideration many things that to us seem unnecessary but are very necessary. For example, the termite. The termite is an important creature in terms of the cleanup crew. So is the vulture. These are animals that some may argue are gross and unnecessary and yet think of a world without them. We can no longer say these things are the result of the fall of mankind. They're not. They are groaning in anticipation of the sons of God to be revealed. They were suffering from the beginning.
See, this one thing led me to a deeper understanding of one of the reasons why God created us in His image.
The experiment you describe, to see if the GULO pseudogene might spring into action if it were needed badly enough, was done a couple of centuries ago by a government institution called the "Royal Navy." They ended up with a bunch of sailors dead from scurvy until they figured out that human beings need something (they didn't know yet that it was vitamin C) added to their diet (for the Royal Navy, it came in the form of lime juice, hence the term "limeys" for British sailors). Whatever the GULO pseudogene might do, it doesn't enable us to make vitamin C (though it was a good guess that a gene might be inactive when it is not needed: many genes in fact have been discovered to behave that way, but again, some have been discovered to just sit there and accumulate random mutations).
Yes, but before that, I was just curious if the body didn't attempt to respond in some way. I don't think we would know that unless we tried it out and checked out that particular gene. RTB postulates that some of these things may be there for support too. I just wouldn't be quick to say it has no function being that the jury is still out. :-) This particular field of study is on the cutting edge bringing out new discoveries each day. We shall see.... Will the evidence support a picture of design and function or junk? I predict the former.
Vera
Jason replied to me
Give me an example of your evidence and I'll be happy to show you the faith that underpins it. In return I'll happily show you the evidence that underpins my faith.
One example of evidence is Tiktaalik. I really would love to know about the evidence that underpins your faith.
Jason
Lets use the following as a working definition of faith “Mental acceptance of and confidence in a claim as truth without proof supporting the claim.”
Facts we know about Tiktaalik
1. It is a lobe finned fish. We know what it looked like. We know where it was found.
2. It has bones in it’s pectoral fins which bear some resemblance to the limbs of tetrapods.
3. It has distinct anatomical features in it’s fins which are very different from the earliest terapods (Ahlberg and Clack state in Nature- Although these small distal bones bear some resemblance to tetrapod digits in terms of their function and range of movement, they are still very much components of a fin. There remains a large morphological gap between them and digits as seen in, for example, Acanthostega: if the digits evolved from these distal bones, the process must have involved considerable developmental repatterning.)
4. Tiktaalik has anatomical features which do not fit with it’s presumed ancestors or descendants such as an unossified backbone with an unusually large number of vertebrae.
I’m sure you can add more.
Faith that underpins your assertion that Tiktaalik supports the theory of evolution.
1. A belief that Tiktaalik represents an intermediate stage between fish and tetrapods (without any other fossil evidence to support this) rather than being a fish particularly well designed for a particular marine environment. (Ahlberg and Clack again concede that the whole concept of “missing links” has been loaded with “unfounded notions of evolutionary ‘progress’ and with a mistaken emphasis on the single intermediate fossil as the key to understanding evolutionary transition.”)
2. Belief that we can accurately predict Tiktaaliks habitat, lifestyle, ability to move from it’s fossilised form. It was thought that the Coelacanth had pectoral fins which would enable it to walk along the sea bed – that’s until we could actually watch it and find that it did everything but walk.
As far as evidence that underpins my faith is concerned I’ll give you a summary and would be happy to expand on any area you choose.
1. Evidence from Creation. Just look around you. But if that’s not enough (and it should be) consider this “late astrophysicist Fred Hoyle pointed out, the probability of the spontaneous assembly of even one of the shortest protein-coding genes, the 200 base-pair gene which codes for the protein histone-4, is "equal to 10-120" and "Even if one were given a random choice for every atom in every galaxy in the whole visible universe" (i.e. ~1080) "the probability of discovering histone-4 would still only be a minuscule ~10-40"”
2. Evidence from the bible. Isaiah predicted Jesus’ crucifixion seven hundred years before it happened and before the Roman empire used crucifixion as a means of execution.
3. The sufficiency of scripture. No other book describes mans condition more accurately. Read the first chapter the book of Romans and then read a newspaper and see what you think.
4. Eye witness accounts of the life of Jesus
5. Extra Biblical accounts of Jesus from secular and Jewish sources.
6. Philosophy – the first cause argument, ontolgical argument.
7. Evidence from my life.
8. Evidence from the life of my friends.
UnclePT:
Thank you for a great post! Thank you so much for taking the time to do this for me. I mean that from the bottom of my heart.
Lets use the following as a working definition of faith “Mental acceptance of and confidence in a claim as truth without proof supporting the claim.”
I object to the use of word "proof" here, unless you want to say that things like gravity and heliocentrism are also taken as faith. As Dimensio has pointed out a billion times, nothing in science is proven. So let's change "proof" to "strong supporting evidence", and change "truth" to "the best explanation that fits the data we currently have", and I'll agree with that.
Facts we know about Tiktaalik
1. It is a lobe finned fish. We know what it looked like. We know where it was found.
2. It has bones in it’s pectoral fins which bear some resemblance to the limbs of tetrapods.
3. It has distinct anatomical features in it’s fins which are very different from the earliest terapods (Ahlberg and Clack state in Nature- Although these small distal bones bear some resemblance to tetrapod digits in terms of their function and range of movement, they are still very much components of a fin. There remains a large morphological gap between them and digits as seen in, for example, Acanthostega: if the digits evolved from these distal bones, the process must have involved considerable developmental repatterning.)
Of course they're different. They're transitional between fish fins and tetrapod limbs:
"The expanded array of distal endochondral bones and synovial joints in the fin of Tiktaalik is similar to the distal limb pattern of basal tetrapods." - Shubin et al 2006, The pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae and the origin of the tetrapod limb, Nature
4. Tiktaalik has anatomical features which do not fit with it’s presumed ancestors or descendants such as an unossified backbone with an unusually large number of vertebrae.
It's true that Tiktaalik's vertebrae are plentiful and unossified (in two of the three specimens, anyway), but I don't see what that has to do with is ancestors or descendants. Are you saying a species with N vertebrae can't produce species with X-4 vertebrae? That's simply untrue. Evolution is not a ladder or a progression in a certain direction. As for the unossified vertebra, from what I could find, the jury is still out.
I’m sure you can add more.
Faith that underpins your assertion that Tiktaalik supports the theory of evolution.
1. A belief that Tiktaalik represents an intermediate stage between fish and tetrapods (without any other fossil evidence to support this) rather than being a fish particularly well designed for a particular marine environment.
Do you know how Tiktaalik was found? Shubin and his team knew that the TOE required that an animal intermediate between Pandericthys, a fish, and Icthyostega, tetrapod, had to exist. It had to live after Pandericthys (380 Ma) but before Icthyostega (365 Ma). So they went to rocks that were 375 million years old, and lo and behold, they found Tiktaalik, a creature intermediate between Pandericthys and Icthyostega. That's evidence, not faith.
(Ahlberg and Clack again concede that the whole concept of “missing links” has been loaded with “unfounded notions of evolutionary ‘progress’ and with a mistaken emphasis on the single intermediate fossil as the key to understanding evolutionary transition.”)
That's not a concession. They're right about the concept of "missing links". That's why scientists don't rely on that outdated concept.
2. Belief that we can accurately predict Tiktaaliks habitat, lifestyle, ability to move from it’s fossilised form. It was thought that the Coelacanth had pectoral fins which would enable it to walk along the sea bed – that’s until we could actually watch it and find that it did everything but walk.
As far predicting what Tiktaalik actually did, that's not as important as its anatomy, which we have (or at least we have a good amount of it). I know full well that we could be wrong about the specifics of Tiktaalik's life style. So no faith there, either.
As far as evidence that underpins my faith is concerned I’ll give you a summary and would be happy to expand on any area you choose.
1. Evidence from Creation. Just look around you.
Please show me Creation and tell me how you know that it is Creation.
But if that’s not enough (and it should be) consider this “late astrophysicist Fred Hoyle pointed out, the probability of the spontaneous assembly of even one of the shortest protein-coding genes, the 200 base-pair gene which codes for the protein histone-4, is "equal to 10-120" and "Even if one were given a random choice for every atom in every galaxy in the whole visible universe" (i.e. ~1080) "the probability of discovering histone-4 would still only be a minuscule ~10-40"”
But you can't count the odds after the fact. What are the chances of last night's Washington State Lottery numbers being 01 06 15 27 46 39? Pretty low. And yet, that's what they were.
2. Evidence from the bible. Isaiah predicted Jesus’ crucifixion seven hundred years before it happened and before the Roman empire used crucifixion as a means of execution.
Are you referring to Isaiah 53:5?
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
It's beautiful, and I would love to think that this really is talking about crucifixion, but in reality, nails aren't the only thing that can pierce a human being. Human-piercing implements were pretty common in Isaiah's day. Please show me how I'm misunderstanding this, because I desperately want to believe it.
3. The sufficiency of scripture. No other book describes mans condition more accurately. Read the first chapter the book of Romans and then read a newspaper and see what you think.
Parts of it might.
4. Eye witness accounts of the life of Jesus
The older I get, the more I realize that eyewitness accounts can't be trusted.
5. Extra Biblical accounts of Jesus from secular and Jewish sources.
Can you suggest some for me, other than Josephus?
6. Philosophy – the first cause argument, ontolgical argument.
I am emotionally drawn to this one, but I don't really know or understand very much about philosophy. People who are much smarter than me agree and disagree with this, and I am really not sure what to make of it. I really want it to be true, though, but I just don't see why the universe needs a cause and God doesn't.
7. Evidence from my life.
8. Evidence from the life of my friends.
I don't know what you and your friends have experienced, but I have experienced many things that could have been God, or could have been coincidence or my imagination.
Thank you again for posting this, and please, I really hope you respond. I wish I knew someone like you IRL. It would be very helpful.
Should we take this discussion to email?
Stephen J
Did Paul? Unless you are using the Roman Catholic enumeration of the commandments, number four is "honor the Sabbath day and keep it holy." Paul did not seem to regard it as an important matter whether Christians observed the Sabbath or not (and commanded them not to neglect meeting and worshiping in groups, but made no mention of observing any particular day on which to do so).
If you are, on the other hand, making Sabbath observance commandment three (and splitting covetnessness into two commandments), then no, I do not disagree with the commandments.
I hope you will allow me to jump in here with your conversation. Do you realize that Paul at least appears to believe that we are in the 7th day of rest? In Hebrews, he mentions several times entering into His rest. I believe the reason that he did not endorse an absolute Sabbath day was because now every day is holy in Christ.
Vera
Stephen J
I won't try to respond to everything you said here because basically it seems mostly opinion. Where I have spent literally an hour or more typing out quotes and references, your post says nothing in terms of proof of the assertion but speaks of them as though they are a foregone conclusion.
For example, as in the words of the not-so-great Dimenso, please demonstrate the whale's mtDNA matches that of Pakicetids. It is once again the scientists imposing evolution on the data
I can assure you that Dr. Ross is not one to "speculate." That is one of the hallmarks of their ministry. They are solely purposed to use only scientific research that is verified.
So with that in mind and in answer to this question
Does he give a source for those figures, and some sort of context for them? For that matter, since a mutation that is beneficial in one environment may be detrimental in another, and neutral in a third, do these figures not vary with environments as well? I don't trust that "ten million to one" figure, especially, but in any case, as noted above, "the vast majority of species" do indeed "lose the evolutionary race" in time; the species alive at any given time are descended from a small fraction of the species alive at some earlier time.
In the back of this book, there are pages and pages of bibliography and for that one statistic, the reference is:
Jonathan K. Pritchard et al., 1791-1798, Thomson et al, 7360-7365; Underhill et al., 358-361; Whitfield et al., 379-380
There is also a reference to Christopher Stringer and Robin McKie African Exodus: The Origins of Humanity (New York: Holt, 1997), 165-166; P.S. Martin and R.G. Klein, eds. Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution.
Ross is a physicist. Actual biologists, as I've mentioned before, see evolution acting more than fast enough to account for the degree and speed of change observed in the fossil record, assuming that the "tree of life" represents an actual tree of descent. Even were Ross right, he would have shown only that some currently unknown cause was necessary to explain the observed complexity and diversity of life; he would not be justified in assuming either that common descent was not correct or that it needed supernatural rather than unknown natural causes to produce. He's invoking a "god of the gaps" argument, and I'm far from convinced that he's identified actual gaps into which to stuff that God.
Dr. Rana is a biologist and there are others on their team. The descent of many animals within a species may very well be true and right.
However, he also brings up this point and I think it is worthy of an answer from you.
Why does life's timing, quantity, type, and diversity throughout the past 3,8 billion years consistently anticipate the needs of future species, including humans?
Why does life's quantity, kind, and diversity always precisely compensate for changes in the sun's luminosity?
I thought those would be two questions you might want to answer of the few that he gave.
These animals were made so perfectly for their habitats and timing. Nature, put simply, cannot fill in the gaps. You can understand the relationships, or so it would seem but your observations are not always correct. Yet it all fits the biblical model for creation. I don't think there is a God fitting within the gaps. I know there's One. I don't have to guess that aspect of this Stephen because I know Him. He is more real to me than I can tell you.
When you take note of scientific research and observe how these things happened, your most important discovery should be God's character in these events. It is such a shame, to me, that you can't see the wonder of God in His creation. I mean, it puts everything into perspective.
Vera
Reply to Jason
Thank you for a great post! Thank you so much for taking the time to do this for me. I mean that from the bottom of my heart.
Lets use the following as a working definition of faith “Mental acceptance of and confidence in a claim as truth without proof supporting the claim.”
I object to the use of word "proof" here, unless you want to say that things like gravity and heliocentrism are also taken as faith. As Dimensio has pointed out a billion times, nothing in science is proven. So let's change "proof" to "strong supporting evidence", and change "truth" to "the best explanation that fits the data we currently have", and I'll agree with that.
Facts we know about Tiktaalik
1. It is a lobe finned fish. We know what it looked like. We know where it was found.
2. It has bones in its pectoral fins which bear some resemblance to the limbs of tetrapods.
3. It has distinct anatomical features in it’s fins which are very different from the earliest tetrapods (Ahlberg and Clack state in Nature- Although these small distal bones bear some resemblance to tetrapod digits in terms of their function and range of movement, they are still very much components of a fin. There remains a large morphological gap between them and digits as seen in, for example, Acanthostega: if the digits evolved from these distal bones, the process must have involved considerable developmental repatterning.)
Of course they're different. They're transitional between fish fins and tetrapod limbs:
"The expanded array of distal endochondral bones and synovial joints in the fin of Tiktaalik is similar to the distal limb pattern of basal tetrapods." - Shubin et al 2006, The pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae and the origin of the tetrapod limb, Nature
I would suggest that the differences are significant. The fin rays in Tiktaaliks pectoral fin are not analogous to digits. They are made of dermal bone not endochondral bone. Viewed through the eye of faith you can make of it what you like but it does not make it true. Consider this – when the first remains of the Duck Billed Platypus were examined scientists were suspicious it was a hoax. Imagine if its fossilised remains had been discovered. What stories would have been invented through the eye of evolutionary faith to explain this strange mixture of bird and mammal (note that nobody suggests that the DBP is an intermediate)? You might say that it would obviously have been a mammal because apart from its bill all of its features were mammalian and I would agree. I would then suggest that Tiktaalik is a fish on the same basis.
4. Tiktaalik has anatomical features which do not fit with it’s presumed ancestors or descendants such as an unossified backbone with an unusually large number of vertebrae.
It's true that Tiktaalik's vertebrae are plentiful and unossified (in two of the three specimens, anyway), but I don't see what that has to do with is ancestors or descendants. Are you saying a species with N vertebrae can't produce species with X-4 vertebrae? That's simply untrue. Evolution is not a ladder or a progression in a certain direction. As for the unossified vertebra, from what I could find, the jury is still out.
If you are suggesting that Tiktaalik is intermediate between an ancestor and a descendent and the route by which it got there was Darwinian evolution it is to be expected that the intermediate would have anatomical features someway between (not outside the range of) those of the ancestor and descendant. Would that not be a prediction of the TOE?
I’m sure you can add more.
Faith that underpins your assertion that Tiktaalik supports the theory of evolution.
1. A belief that Tiktaalik represents an intermediate stage between fish and tetrapods (without any other fossil evidence to support this) rather than being a fish particularly well designed for a particular marine environment.
Do you know how Tiktaalik was found? Shubin and his team knew that the TOE required that an animal intermediate between Pandericthys, a fish, and Icthyostega, tetrapod, had to exist. It had to live after Pandericthys (380 Ma) but before Icthyostega (365 Ma). So they went to rocks that were 375 million years old, and lo and behold, they found Tiktaalik, a creature intermediate between Pandericthys and Icthyostega. That's evidence, not faith.
This is one example where you believe that paeleontologists used the TOE to predict an outcome correctly thus substantiating their hypothesis. If you follow this path of reasoning then it is important that you explain why the fossil record substatially supports stasis not evolution. Are you not cherry picking the best tiny bit of evidence that you believe supports your belief whilst ignoring the mass of evidence that refites it? On a different note you have to consider other possibilities. Show me that this wasn’t coincidence. If it wasn’t it sould be possible to predict other sites where similar finds can be made. How many times have predictions been made which were not correct? Do these falsify the TOE?
Fossil evidence showed that the Coelacanth became extinct a supposed 80 million years ago yet they are still swimming around today. Are you sure that Tiktaalik was not swimming around 460 million yers ago rather than 380?
So the evidence is the fossil. The faith is the belief that it fits in to your theory. It’s not testable, not repeatable, not provable.
(Ahlberg and Clack again concede that the whole concept of “missing links” has been loaded with “unfounded notions of evolutionary ‘progress’ and with a mistaken emphasis on the single intermediate fossil as the key to understanding evolutionary transition.”)
That's not a concession. They're right about the concept of "missing links". That's why scientists don't rely on that outdated concept.
Then if we agree that Ahlberg and Clack are right we should not view Tiktaalik with “unfounded notions of evolutionary ‘progress”. If you don’t feel this is what has happened look at reports in the New York Times when the fossils were found.
2. Belief that we can accurately predict Tiktaaliks habitat, lifestyle, ability to move from it’s fossilised form. It was thought that the Coelacanth had pectoral fins which would enable it to walk along the sea bed – that’s until we could actually watch it and find that it did everything but walk.
As far predicting what Tiktaalik actually did, that's not as important as its anatomy, which we have (or at least we have a good amount of it). I know full well that we could be wrong about the specifics of Tiktaalik's life style. So no faith there, either.
Again read the articles written in Nature. Huge assumptions (guesses) are made to encourage us to believe that this fish was waiting eagerly in the shallow evolutionary waters ready to stride onto terra firma and start it’s new life as a tetrapod. The truth is that a few facts have been used to make up a big story. If you believe it then you have great faith.
As far as evidence that underpins my faith is concerned I’ll give you a summary and would be happy to expand on any area you choose.
1. Evidence from Creation. Just look around you.
Please show me Creation and tell me how you know that it is Creation.
It’s the argument fron design. Google it and you’ll see plenty written about it. SeeRomans 1:20. God has left us without excuse. I met a guy from Iran yesterday who used to be a moslem. He became a Chritian without reading the Bible or being taught by others. It was a fascinatin testimony.
Richard Dawkins view is this "In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference." Does this describe the world you know? Do you really think that there is no such thing as good or evil?
But if that’s not enough (and it should be) consider this “late astrophysicist Fred Hoyle pointed out, the probability of the spontaneous assembly of even one of the shortest protein-coding genes, the 200 base-pair gene which codes for the protein histone-4, is "equal to 10-120" and "Even if one were given a random choice for every atom in every galaxy in the whole visible universe" (i.e. ~1080) "the probability of discovering histone-4 would still only be a minuscule ~10-40"”
But you can't count the odds after the fact. What are the chances of last night's Washington State Lottery numbers being 01 06 15 27 46 39? Pretty low. And yet, that's what they were.
The fact? Are you not assuming the fact (that histone-4 happened by chance) before the evidence? You have no evidence that the gene that codes for histone assembled by chance. You have assumed it. Wouldn’t it be rational, considering how unlikely chance assembly was, to look for another explanation? Believers (in the TOE) assume (believe, have faith) evolution is fact and then fit their evidence together to support it, ignore contradictory evidence and rely on a whole raft of just so stories to fill the enormous gaps and then call it science.
2. Evidence from the bible. Isaiah predicted Jesus’ crucifixion seven hundred years before it happened and before the Roman empire used crucifixion as a means of execution.
Are you referring to Isaiah 53:5?
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
It's beautiful, and I would love to think that this really is talking about crucifixion, but in reality, nails aren't the only thing that can pierce a human being. Human-piercing implements were pretty common in Isaiah's day. Please show me how I'm misunderstanding this, because I desperately want to believe it.
You are right it is beautiful and that it is an accurate prophecy of Christs substitutionary death but not the best for His crucifixion. For better examples of predictive prohecy (and there are plenty) see Isaiah 23 for prophecy regarding Tyre and Isaiah 44/45 for prophecy regarding King Cyrus.One function of prophecy is to confirm the Divine authority of the Bible.
Isaiah 53 though is what it is all about. God thinks that you and I were worth dying for and through His suffering we are healed. Amazing Grace!
3. The sufficiency of scripture. No other book describes mans condition more accurately. Read the first chapter the book of Romans and then read a newspaper and see what you think.
Parts of it might.
4. Eye witness accounts of the life of Jesus
The older I get, the more I realize that eyewitness accounts can't be trusted.
I understand what you are sayingbut most of our knowledge of history is based on it. There are well established forms of textural criticism which assess the reliability of documentary evidence. The Bible has been scrutinised more than any other document. ReadJosh McDowells “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”. Heavy going but well worth it.
5. Extra Biblical accounts of Jesus from secular and Jewish sources.
Can you suggest some for me, other than Josephus?
If you Google “Extra-biblical references to Jesus and Christianity” or similar you will find what you are looking for.
6. Philosophy – the first cause argument, ontolgical argument.
I am emotionally drawn to this one, but I don't really know or understand very much about philosophy. People who are much smarter than me agree and disagree with this, and I am really not sure what to make of it. I really want it to be true, though, but I just don't see why the universe needs a cause and God doesn't.
God is eternal. He lives outside of time. We struggle to understand this because we are time bound. The universe is within time and therefore needs a first cause(God). An eternal being had no start or finish but just is. God and Time by Gregory Gansle is helpful.
7. Evidence from my life.
The change in my life came when I recognised my own sinfulness (no credit to me it was pretty obvious) and cried out in desperation to God for His forgiveness. Before that I said I was an atheist but like Ray often suggests I did know that God was God but I and my sin were too important. Since then I have a new heart (the old born again thing) and I am changed. Far from the finished article but believe me I would not go back for anything.
8. Evidence from the life of my friends.
I don't know what you and your friends have experienced, but I have experienced many things that could have been God, or could have been coincidence or my imagination.
Thank you again for posting this, and please, I really hope you respond. I wish I knew someone like you IRL. It would be very helpful.
I will pray for you. That you may know Christ as your Saviour. Our journey is not meant to be a solitary one. Look for solid Bible based teaching – Jesus spent a lot of His ministry warning of false teachers so tread carefully with discerment. A great place to find out more and meet people who you can discuss the Christian faith with is an organisation called BSF (Bible Study Fellowship). They are world wide but mostly in USA. Above all I would encourage you not to delay – the fence is a dangerous and uncomfortable place to sit!
Should we take this discussion to email?
Ray, I wrote a long reply to UnclePT a couple weeks ago, but it hasn't shown up. Unfortunately, I did not save it. Is there a chance it's still in limbo waiting to be approved, or is it lost forever?
Jason
Sorry that I didnt get your reply. Looks as though it has been intercepted.
Post a Comment