Can A Person Be Saved and Still Believe In Evolution?
Scientists are all abuzz about the discovery of what they describe as a 4.4 million year old “early human”.
On this edition of Truth Talk Live Alex McFarland interviews Professor Ted Wright.
Ardi -The missing link?
Wright has participated in archaeological digs and expeditions to places like the bottom of the Grand Canyon and the Middle East.
In addition to questions about how evolutionary belief may or may not be compatible with Christianity, Wright presents breaking news about “Ardi,” the fossil find purported to be a missing link between humans and primates.
McFarland is the President of Southern Evangelical Seminary, a school devoted to apologetics, which is a rational defense of Christian claims.
Information about the National Conference on Christian Apologetics November 13-14, 2009 HERE..
Stay connected!
120 Comments on “Can A Person Be Saved and Still Believe In Evolution?”
headline: Can A Person Be Saved and Still Believe In Evolution?
Yup.
As I’ve mentioned before, I hesitate at the phrase “believe in”, simply because there’s no faith or hope involved — merely intellectual acceptance. But sure, one can accept evolution and still be a Christian.
blurb: Wright presents breaking news about “Ardi,” the fossil find purported to be a missing link between humans and primates.
Um, humans are primates. So’s Ardipithecus. There’s no link to bridge there, “missing” or otherwise. (Not to mention that “missing link” is kind of a misleading term anyway.) It is hoped that Ardi will help to fill in some of the incomplete picture we have of the primate family tree.
Remember MattF., Bob Griffin was described under the description of the first show hosted by Alex McFarland of “Should The Church Celebrate Darwin’s Birthday?” as someone “…who specializes in using Darwin’s own theory to refute the very idea of evolution.”[and we all know how well he's been doing at THAT]so you KNOW that the show is probably going to be rife with scientific inaccuracies, and you probably remember how you were treated by Alex when you tried to call into the show and actually teach them something. Nobody was interested in hearing you and then you were….uh…accidentally disconnected[smile]. This show is probably going to be akin to learning about evolution from a Ken Ham website. I’m not seeing any Archeologists or Paleontologists listed under the name of Ted Wight when I look his name up on the computer. Regardless of this, it should still be, one way or another, an amusing show.
Right you were, John. From Seth’s closing “arguments”: Sure, you can be a Christian and “believe in” evolution — “but why would you want to”?
Oh, I don’t know — for the same reasons we want to “believe in” gravity, I guess. We’ve seen it directly. The evidence corroborating it is voluminous, and nothing yet contradicts it (in spite of more than a century and a half of more vitriolic attacks than, I wager, any other theory in science). We see its effects all the time. Other, independent lines of inquiry still lead us to understand its existence.
Contrary to what Seth asserted, it’s not about accepting what’s popular. It’s about accepting the evidence. There is no evidence for creationism.
It’s also not a view that, as Seth asserted, leads one away from thinking God is necessary if taken to its logical conclusion. It merely attempts to describe the diversity of life on this planet. It says nothing about whether or not God is “necessary” one way or the other.
As usual, I stand ready to give examples and citations on demand.
Oh, and those who think that those who accept evolution do so “because it’s true” and think it’s true because we accept it — please refer to posts 401 and 411 in part 3 of “Should the church celebrate Darwin’s birthday”? There’s no circular reasoning in those evidences; they all corroborate evolution (and, by coincidence, show that creationism is false). Remember, a valid scientific theory attempts to be consistent with all the evidence.
That’s a pretty cool drawing of Ardipithecus, eh[smile]?
It’s from Science magazine.
I know.
Every now and then I’ll buy one when I’m in the city[smile].
Hi John, MattF. Glad to see you are still fighting the good fight. Sirius radio no longer carries TTL at 4 pm so I never hear it anymore, and whenever I check over here (maybe twice a week) I usually just see Mike’s posts (and I’ve been round that cul de sac enough!). Anyone want to place bets on how soon they have a TTL episode decrying…I mean, discussing…Obama’s nobel peace prize? Love you all, my brothers and sisters in Christ…including you John!
Why, hellooooooooooooooo dear woman, it’s good to hear from you once again[smile]. You mean that I can get a little love too[smile with one raised eyebrow]? Thanks! I cannot listen to the show anymore either, not for a long time now. It’s not really that much of a fight. Aside from a little dialog with a new poster named LeeLee, me and MattF. may as well have been just talking to ourselves on the last evolutionary blog, so little has Bob Griffin been willing to work with us. And Maz Herman has been silent for quite some time. I hope that she’s o.k., she was an old lady with medical problems you know[frown]. There is a website called Republican Faith Chat that I’ve been ‘fighting the good fight” on recently. I am slowly becoming over there to them what Barney/Fred was over here, but it’s o.k., as almost all of them over there are evil. If you go over there, I wouldn’t post anything unless you’re able to completely convince yourself that it’s all nothing but satire and not let the hurtful words or offensive disrespectful behavior bother you. They are very rude and irrational. I originally went there to offer to teach a few things about evolution to someone, and now…..many posts later…..I just go there to give the most popular posters[mainly Tiffany Wellsley, the websites Moderator, and "prophetessdebbie"] a hard time, gleefully pointing out their acts of hypocrisy and stupidity.
Anyway…….
Hope you and the family are all doing well these days.
I miss hearing from you, and despite your differences in opinion I’m SUUURE that Mike has no real ill feelings toward you. You should pop back onto the website more often[smile].
I’m not going to place any bets on that, but I can see how that would make for an interesting show. Many people don’t think that he did enough to earn that Nobel Peace Prize like he should have. Time will tell all.
Matt F. & John
I am pretty new to this website/blog. Just to set the record straight (from your comments) – I am the Ted W. that was on the show with Alex. I have a B.A. in anthropology/archaeology and an M.A. in Apologetics/Philosophy. I am currently working on my PhD.. I teach at the Southern Evangelical Seminary. I teach apologetics, Old Testament, Archaeology & Logic. I am not currently doing research on anthropology or archaeology but I have done field work and lab work.
I am glad that you are listening (if you actually are). I have a question for you both: How would you describe yourselves: atheists, agnostics, or theists? Do you guys have science backgrounds, advanced science degrees, or are you just informed laymen?
John: ”…she was an old lady with medical problems you know[frown].”
I come on just for a visit to see how you are all getting on and there you are calling me ”an old lady”.
Well, I may be 63 but I am certainly not THAT old, I am still quite fit and active you know.
And, yes, I am fine thanks John. I can’t say I’v missed it, I’v been busy elsewhere and enjoying the fun and freedom from the cycle of arguments on here. But just to add my comment to the above question…..as a Christian who also believed in evolution for some years before I was enlightened!!!!!….I know I was born-again of the spirit and Jesus had saved me, so the answer is a resounding YES!!
We can have certain theology wrong and still be saved as long as it doesn’t compromise the gospel message of Jesus Christ, His death and resurrection for us and His Diety.
But whether anyone who ‘claims’ to be a Christian and believes in evolution after being ‘enlightened’ that is another question. Not all that proclaim to be Christian are, the fundemental question is whether they have Christ dwelling in their lives and they are living according to Gods Word.
Well, I’v said quite a bit…….havn’t done this for some while so I’m catching up I guess.
Ted: I didn’t listen to the show, I’m actually in Britain so don’t get to hear most of them if any, so I don’t know what you believe. But there are many scientists well educated in their field that believe both……. evolution or creation and there are those who have been (like I was yet not a scientist) evolutionists and have come to see that creation is a far better explanation of life on earth……and the Universe as a whole. Many sadly will resolutely stick to their evolutionary guns and refuse to see any other picture but millions of years of suffering, disease and death…..and for many theists, that is the way God created…..mmmmmmmmmm.
kash: ” I check over here (maybe twice a week) I usually just see Mike’s posts (and I’ve been round that cul de sac enough!)”
Can’t let this one go. It’s not a cul de sac, its a cliff which this economy has gone over and all government actions so far are just placing spikes at the bottom for us to land on. Job losses are mounting as the world clamors to get out of the USD. Have you not noticed that across the planet countries are calling for an alternative to the USD. The petroleum producing nations are now just beginning to trade in other currencies. US petrodollars will in time be no more. US government leaders are now calling for stimulus plan # 2. More debt to encourage more spending which is what got us into this mess in the first place. YOU DO NOT SPEND YOUR WAY OUT OF A PROBLEM, YOU MUST PRODUCE YOUR WAY OUT. What ended the Great Depression was the production generated by the War. During the depression we were still the manufacturing powerhouse of the world. As of October 2009 the US has gutted its manufacturing base (at one time our GDP was 40% manufacturing now its under 20%) and we are 70% dependent on foreign energy.
I’m beginning to think that maybe Darwin had a point as far as survival of the fittest. This nation has built a massive debt and is not fit to survive.
You will notice that so far my predictions are right on schedule. Gold closed the week at $1048 after hitting a high of $1062. The USD managed to struggle back above 76 on the USDX. I fully expect it to break to new lows within a year.
Recent news has mentioned Churches that are in financial trouble. I know that some Christian radio programs have had to cut back on the number of stations they broadcast on. So while we debate Darwin, evolution, homosexuality, and yes I do believe may get a program on Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, which he was nominated for 12 days into his administration, the economy, the nation, and many churches will be collapsing all around us.
kash, by the way a few months ago you gave us the Keynesian answer to the recession, which is really a depression. In your argument you stated that government spending would lead to jobs and in the end increase revenues back to the government. So far we have had billions in stimulus with the result being rising unemployment (U3 is at 9.8%; U6, a more accurate measure is 17%), increasing foreclosures and prices for everyday goods and services remaining stubbornly high. So far you typical statist worldview is failing miserably. Since you are such a believer in the philosophy that once wrong discredits a person in all areas (your statements about Dr. Gary North and Y2K) do you now discredit yourself regarding evolution?
Hi, Ted! Thanks for joining the discussion!
Ted: How would you describe yourselves: atheists, agnostics, or theists?
Well, evolution is about the evidence, not who happens to be arguing it, but I’ll answer the question.
Not just a theist, but a rather devoted Christian.
Ted: Do you guys have science backgrounds, advanced science degrees, or are you just informed laymen?
Advanced science degree. Most of my background has been more practical than theoretical science, but I had the (all too brief) pleasure of doing research work some years ago.
mherman: Well, I may be 63 but I am certainly not THAT old, I am still quite fit and active you know.
Really? No offense, Maz, but I pictured you as much younger than that. Ah, well.
mherman: But whether anyone who ‘claims’ to be a Christian and believes in evolution after being ‘enlightened’ that is another question.
[waves hand] Hi, there! That would be me.
I was a young-Earth creationist for most of my life. I was dragged out of it by the simple weight of the evidence. Sure, the creationists have thus far started out eager to discuss, but end up appealing to rhetoric or using the same, worn-out, flawed arguments I used to use myself before learning what the facts are.
mherman: Not all that proclaim to be Christian are, the fundemental question is whether they have Christ dwelling in their lives and they are living according to Gods Word.
On that, we agree. I’ve maintained from the beginning, though, that the creationist stance of being consistent with science is an erroneous one. It’s that in particular that I have stood against in most of my correspondence on this site.
mherman: Many sadly will resolutely stick to their evolutionary guns and refuse to see any other picture but millions of years of suffering, disease and death…..and for many theists, that is the way God created…..mmmmmmmmmm.
Hey, if there’s another explanation that’s consistent with direct observation, discovery, and experiment, let’s hear it. Alternate explanations could only be a good thing — after all, the very least it could give us is ideas for new experiments in order to find out what the facts really are.
So far, though, all you’ve given us are wild misrepresentations of fact, quotes out of context, and broad misunderstandings of the subject matter. I eagerly await some actual findings, or some explanations that are actually consistent with the facts and don’t depend on misrepresenting your philosophical opponents, if and when you deign to bring them.
Hey Ted, you didn’t ask me, but I’ll chime in anyway. I’m a veterinarian who majored in biochemistry undergrad. I’m a bible believing born again Christian, and I think the Bible is literal in many places and allegorical in many places and I’m not dogmatic about when it is which. I am guided in my Bible interpretation two basic approaches. The first is a quote attributed to Augustine, though its origins (like much in history) are murky: “In Essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.” The second is from Augustine’s own writings, and bears more directly on the 144 hour creation, young earth position versus the demonstrable reality of geology, cosmology, and yes, evolution: “Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, this is a disgraceful and dangerous things for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumable giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these subjects; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of the Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.” (De Genesi ad litteram, Book I, Chapter 19) And Augustine was writing some 1500 years before Darwin and 1000 years before Galileo. Impressive.
And Maz, I too am relieved to hear you are well. John meant no disrespect in referring to you as an “old lady”.just concern. Anyway, I’m glad he got your dander up so that we got to hear from you again.
MIke, I’m not going to respond to your absolutist position, especially not on this post. The stiumulus money has not all been spent yet, the TARP money is a debacle but at least the banking system didn’t entirely collapse and the stock market has somewhat recovered (probably built on sand, but for people who depend on their 401k sand is better than nothing if they can get their assets converted into something safer now that they have some again). I am cautiously optimistic as always, you are entirely pessimistic as always, but since our opinions have no bearing on what the future will actually bring what is the point of hashing it out ad nauseum on unrelated posts? My own personal situation is as secure as earthly possessions can ever be, and my eternal treasure is in heaven so I do not fear regardless. Mostly I worry about people who are not so fortunate as I am..
To adapt and borrow a quote from Star Wars, “Stay on topic!”
Ted,
Thanks for joining the discussion. It is rare that the person interviewed on the show sticks around to discuss the issue. I hope you can stick around and contribute to this discussion. Otherwise, it will probably be a repeat of previous threads on this topic.
Kash: “My own personal situation is as secure as earthly possessions can ever be, and my eternal treasure is in heaven so I do not fear regardless. Mostly I worry about people who are not so fortunate as I am..”
In your first sentence you said you would not respond then you did just that. The difference between you and me is that I am not worried about my eternity nor my life here on earth. You see I believe the Bible and how God would have us live our lives. Like Noah, who knew the flood was coming and tried to warn people but no one listened…..I guess they all said, “Noah, you are such a pessimist and crazy to think the world will be flooded.” But Noah was obedient to God only and did not follow in the traditions of men. You and a few others like MattF, do not believe God’s word regarding disobedience and how He deals with it. Your faith is with the statist and not with God.
Do you not realize why Communist and Fascists both are enemies of the Church? It is because the State must be substituted for God. They want the people to depend on the State to solve their problems…..they want the State to replace God in people’s minds and heart. Aparently you and quite a few other Christians have bought into that notion. A handful of us Noah’s haven’t and we recognize evil when we see it no matter how it is dressed up.
Darwin was right about one thing, only the Fit Survive. In the animal kingdom, the cunning preditor does not starve to death, and the vigilent prey does not get eaten. The weak go under. We are now in that environment, where the preditors come from Wall Street and Washington DC, and the prey is all of us. Our best protection is what God provided to use as money, Gold and Silver, along with the rest of his creation, like food, energy, base metals, water…..the entire commodity complex. Aren’t these the things that made Abraham, Issac, Jacob, etc. wealthy…..isn’t that how God blessed Job at the end of his ordeal?
I honor God by my obedience to His word. I take Him at his word, which is why when I read Deu.8:10-20 and Deu.15 (the passage pertaining to Israel not being a debtor to anyone) I ACTUALLY BELIEVE HIM. When he denounces diverse weights and measures, I TAKE HIM AT HIS WORD. I do not trust Democrats nor do I trust Republicans, both have proven to be the statists that are enslaving us.
Survival of the fittest….Darwin was 100% correct on this count. This survival was dependent on the ability to adapt. Up until 2000 – 2001, I had faith in the US dollar; but back then I thought as a child. As I gained in knowledge, which I have tried to pass on to everyone I meet, I lost that faith as my eyes were finally opened. I foresaw the coming crisis and began to prepare 9 years ago. My ark is complete and if the rains does not come….fat chance of that….I will have lost nothing; but if it does I, like Noah, will not be swept away in the flood. But not only will I and my immediately family come through the storm in fine shape, but I hope to be able to use my PRESERVED wealth to help first my mother and then my church and then others less fortunate.
But even if I dropped dead this instant, my ultimate reward will be waiting for me at the feet of the one who saved me. I hope to hear from Him, “Well done my good and FAITHFUL servant.”
Thanks for the welcome guys!
If you didn’t get to listen in on the show, the way that I answered the question is – “yes” a person can believe in evolution and still be saved. I don’t make belief or non-belief in evolution a litmus test for salvation. We are saved “by grace through faith” (Ephesians 2:8-9). But, that being said, the question of HOW God created is a vitally important question which has relevance on other doctrines in the Bible (such as miracles, etc..).
My own understanding of science and the history of science comes from Thomas S. Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” Be careful to put all of your eggs (to use a figure of speech) in the science basket. Science is our understanding of our world and universe up to this particular time (by use of observations, hypotheses, and experimentation). If you know the history of science then you will know that at certain times the majority of scientists have been completely wrong on some issues and only a handful (at best) of scientists questioned the paradigm. A couple of examples: the once firm belief in the existence ether which filled the universe (in the history of physics) – believed for centuries to be true but shown false in the 1880′s by the Michelson and Morley experiment & also Einstein’s work on General Relativity – which was definitely not accepted early on. What I mean by this is that when we are discussing origins and how God created the universe (whether old or young) – we should use a dash of humility – (to be truly “scientific” is NOT to be dogmatic) because as some of the most brilliant scientists themselves have said, “What we don’t know us much more than we know.” If there is anything that the history of science teaches us it is that some of the most far fetched and crazy ideas have turned out to be true. There seems to be much compelling evidence that the universe is extremely old, extremely large and expanding – but that’s our understanding today (something may be discovered that may cause us to revise our understanding) when and if that something is discovered will we humbly change our views or will we dogmatically hold on to them because this is what we DESIRE to believe?
The age of the earth and universe is an in-house debate among evangelicals. We can agree to disagree on this issue. God did it – the evidence is there (anthropic principle, etc…) But God’s using macro-evolution and speciation (via Darwinian mutation and natural selection) is something I am not willing to concede theologically OR scientifically.
correction on my post 21: “be careful NOT to put all of your eggs in the science basket”
Ted,
According to some on this website the debate is pretty much over and macro-evolution is the only reasonable interpretation of the evidence. Maybe they will engage you and give you a shot at answering their dogmatics.
Ted: Yes, thank you for your willingness to spend time responding to comments on the blog. You wrote, “But God’s using macro-evolution and speciation (via Darwinian mutation and natural selection) is something I am not willing to concede theologically OR scientifically.” First, there is no such thing as ‘Darwinian mutation.’ Genetics were not understood when Darwin was around discussing evolution, and the current notion of how macroevolution proceeds is far beyond what Darwin proposed. But I don’t have a problem if you don’t accept the evidence for macroevolution. I do have a problem if a Christian thinks that they have a God-given mandate to stop evolution from being taught in science classrooms, since it is the currently generally accepted science, even while details remain to be elucidated and some facets will doubtless undergo modification (as all scientific knowledge is modified as new information or better insights are discovered by human endeavor and thought). And I don’t think it is appopriate to teach Intelligent Design in a science classroom, since it is less about honest scientific inquiry into the origins of life and more about trying to make the science fit a preconceived belief structure about what the Bible teaches. For me, there can be no disharmony between science and the Bible, but not because I think we already absolutely know what the Bible means or absolutely understand the universe scientifically. The Bible may not change, and the laws of the universe may be decipherable, but our understanding of both grow over time. I believe in a God who created human minds capable of discerning truth. As a result, my interpretation of Scripture must conform to reliable evidence about the world God created. The evidence is quite reliable that the earth is around 5 billion years old, that organisms have come and gone and changed over time, that is wasn’t all created suddenly in 144 hours less than 10,000 years ago. To continue to insist that this is what Genesis teaches is to make the Bible ridiculous at best, obsolete at worst, when instead the Bible is more relevant now than ever. That is the only reason that I think this discussion is important, although wherever one finds oneself along the contiuum from young earth creationism to old universe cosmology and evolution does not have a bearing on one’s salvation. It is Christ who saves, not Biblical exegesis or scientific knowledge, though I enjoy both immensely.
Ted: If you didn’t get to listen in on the show, the way that I answered the question is – “yes” a person can believe in evolution and still be saved. I don’t make belief or non-belief in evolution a litmus test for salvation. We are saved “by grace through faith” (Ephesians 2:8-9).
Yes, I heard that. I think we agree on that much.
Ted: But, that being said, the question of HOW God created is a vitally important question which has relevance on other doctrines in the Bible (such as miracles, etc..).
Is it? Is God required to work in identical fashion every time? Is God required to work according to a particular fashion we imagine or prefer, which we must assume before analysis of any forensic evidence? What should we do if forensic evidence contradicts our preferred understanding of how we think God does what He does? Is God required to work in miraculous fashion every time He works?
Ted: If you know the history of science then you will know that at certain times the majority of scientists have been completely wrong on some issues and only a handful (at best) of scientists questioned the paradigm.
Yes. Science has never claimed to have the absolute truth in any matter. Again, if you’re familiar with the history of science, you’ll understand that science is not about having the truth; it’s about eliminating error. Science can only hope to approach the truth in asymptotic fashion.
For example, the belief in ether was formed by observations that light has wavelike properties and the (flawed) understanding that waves need a medium to travel through. Our understanding of waves has changed since then; Michelson and Morley’s demonstration that a fixed reference frame (such as movement against ether) might well not be possible and Einstein’s insight into the nature of light showed that the idea of a medium was completely unnecessary.
As our insight has grown deeper and our understanding has become more refined, we are capable of eliminating more and more error. We’re never right on the button, but as evidence pours in, we gain increasing confidence that we’re on the right track.
Creationism has been rather soundly falsified. (I refer you back to the posts in “Should the church celebrate Darwin’s birthday?”) Even though we definitely don’t have evolution exactly right, we have much detail substantially confirmed — and more importantly, we know what’s not true.
Ted: There seems to be much compelling evidence that the universe is extremely old, extremely large and expanding – but that’s our understanding today (something may be discovered that may cause us to revise our understanding) when and if that something is discovered will we humbly change our views or will we dogmatically hold on to them because this is what we DESIRE to believe?
Always a valid question. As pointed out, though, we know what isn’t true, because any new theory will have to be consistent with all experimental results, discoveries, and observations made up to the time it is conceived. We don’t, for example, expect a return to the cosmological ideas of ancient Greece, when they thought that the Sun was (at most) about five miles up.
That’s exactly why I’ve encouraged alternate theories that are consistent with the facts. Creationists haven’t brought them yet, and based on their actions, seem only capable of maintaining their “Creationism is fully compatible with ‘real’ science!” line by ignoring volumes of directly-observed evidence, actual experimental results, and mountains of real-world discoveries.
Let me be clear: when I say that creationism is false, I do not mean to say that God did not create. I mean to say that God did not create the many species on this planet instantaneously de novo, nor did He do so over a brief span of time (like a week). The evidence is pretty clear and unambiguous on that. It also seems pretty conclusive that the many varieties of life evolved from one or a few common ancestors that lived in the distant past.
Ted: The age of the earth and universe is an in-house debate among evangelicals. We can agree to disagree on this issue.
In principle, I’d generally agree with this. My point of contention is when those who believe that the Earth is young claim that “real science” agrees. It does not. The evidence for Earth’s great age is unambiguous and voluminous (which, again, I can discuss if you like).
If you want to believe that the Earth is young as a matter of faith in spite of the scientific evidence otherwise, I can’t bring science or logic to bear against that. God can do anything, including make a world and Universe look ancient according to every scientific inquiry yet devised, even those that are independent of each other, and still have it be young. I might wonder what such a God implies theologically and what that implies politically about where you get answers to your questions about the natural world, but if you take the tactic that things were altered by an Almighty God to look different from the way they really are, I can’t disprove that logically.
Ultimately, of course, it makes no difference to eternal destiny what you think about the age of the Earth or the Universe. This is ultimately a very peripheral issue in Christendom. I merely mean to encourage Christians not to willingly participate in their own delusion — to understand what the facts really are so that they no longer misrepresent the facts or our faith.
Ted: But God’s using macro-evolution and speciation (via Darwinian mutation and natural selection) is something I am not willing to concede theologically OR scientifically.
Now who’s being dogmatic? (You wouldn’t be willing to concede? No matter what the actual evidence happens to be?)
Seriously, if you’re not willing to think that you might be mistaken, you’re not only ignoring your own advice, you’re not doing science.
Kash: #17. John didn’t get my ”dander up” I just thot he had the wrong idea of me. I’m a young OAP!
And I see Mike is still on about money when the question has nothing to do with it!
Ted: You are right that we know God created the Universe because He has told us in His Word.
But if you believe He created because He said He did, why not believe that He did it the way He said He did…..in 6 days. ”Because science says otherwise”, I can hear you say. But science is just a search for the truth. The Truth is laid out for us in the Bible….why can’t believers believe that? They believe Jesus rose from the dead…..something never before happened.
Can God create the Universe in 6 days? Ofcourse He can….and He did, because He said He did.
Exodus 20 v 11 tell us again too. So why do Christians believe so-called scientific evidence by evolutionists and not the Bible?
And we can be dogmatic….as far as what God has said in His Word is concerned.
I just made this huge post to Ted and Maz and now I don’t see it, even though the website reminded me that I already sent it in.
Darn.
I have to go to a party now. I’ll try again tomorrow.
Oh sure….THAT ONE went in.
mherman: But if you believe He created because He said He did, why not believe that He did it the way He said He did…..in 6 days.
For me, personally, it’s that there is decent evidence — based on the millennia of debate concerning it — that the passage is not as cut-and-dry as you seem to think it is. You have come to the conclusion that this is the only way this passage can possibly be understood, in spite of Biblical scholars (with much better acquaintance with the times and language of the passage than either of us) finding it much less well-defined than you think. This is even true of scribes and rabbis doing their best to figure out what He was saying He did well before modern science weighed in on the matter.
It’s not a matter of preferring science’s explanation. It’s also not a matter of preferring your explanation. It’s recognizing that the text is less scientifically rigorous than you like to pretend, and hoping that honest investigation can provide a way out of the morass of different interpretations out there.
There are a number of different interpretations that still attempt to be responsible to the text that are consistent with the facts. I can’t say which of them is true; it may even be that none of them are, and that the real explanation is deeper than anything people have yet been able to understand or even conceive. Whatever the real explanation is, I expect that it will be consistent with both Scripture and simple facts we observe and discover. Young-Earth creationism is not one of these explanations; it’s certainly not consistent with direct observation and discovery, and (depending on interpretation) one might make a case for saying that it’s inconsistent with passages that hint that the Earth really is ancient and with attempts to interpret Romans and Hebrews literally.
I’m not saying that the answer is mine. But it’s certainly not in trying to pretend that a certain explanation is consistent with “real science” when it isn’t.
mherman: But science is just a search for the truth. The Truth is laid out for us in the Bible….why can’t believers believe that? They believe Jesus rose from the dead…..something never before happened.
Because we also believe that the evidence, if it could be found and examined, would be consistent with Christ rising from the dead. It wouldn’t appear to all investigations as if His body was actually still lying there.
There is a very important difference between “I believe the Bible” and “I believe this particular interpretation of this passage”. You still seem to fail to see the difference.
mherman: Can God create the Universe in 6 days? Ofcourse He can….and He did, because He said He did.
I’ve said it many times before. I do not contest that God can create everything the way that the young-Earth creationists describe. I’m saying that He didn’t, based on the evidence left behind, and that some other way of understanding the passage must be true. I’ve made my attempt to understand it, though my interpretation is fluid and subject to change based on hermeneutical reasons or scientific ones.
mherman: Exodus 20 v 11 tell us again too. So why do Christians believe so-called scientific evidence by evolutionists and not the Bible?
The same ambiguous language is used in Exodus 20. I’ve tried to point this out to you. (It is my belief that God was creating a pattern, pointing out (as a paraphrase), “I set up six time periods where I worked and one where I rested; I expect you to do the same”. God used the fact that Hebrew is ambiguous with these temporal terms to establish a much broader plan than one-day-in-seven. It’s worth noting that there are many different “sabbaths” in the Old Testament, always one period in seven, though not all simply one day per week. Was the Sabbath year any less holy, for example, or any less set aside by God?
I also grant that there are theological difficulties with my interpretation. I find it curious that even when I have asked, no young-Earth creationist has been willing to address the theological difficulties in their interpretation; they seem content to pretend these difficulties simply don’t exist.
mherman: And we can be dogmatic….as far as what God has said in His Word is concerned.
Where God is unambiguous, yes. But I think we do great harm where we are more dogmatic than He is, especially when we rise to making our interpretation tantamount to God’s Word itself. The Church has done great harm in the past where this sort of thing is concerned. Observations and discoveries should be reason for us to re-analyze our interpretations and realize that our understanding is imperfect and that God’s message to us is bigger than our understanding, not be reason for us to plant our feet and refuse to grow in faith or understanding because we prefer the interpretation we’re comfortable with.
I note that God doesn’t provide much detail about the beginning and the end of human history. He is much more definite about issues concerning our eternal redemption and how we ought to treat one another. I think that’s purposeful. For some reason, it was not important to our spiritual welfare to know intimate details about Creation.
MattF: It wouldn’t appear to all investigations as if His body was actually still lying there.
Let me be more specific: It wouldn’t appear to all investigations, up to and including direct observation, that His body was actually still lying there.
One might make a case for God’s miracles being consistent with creationism if Jesus’ disciples ran to the tomb, clearly saw Christ’s body in there, and started telling the whole world that He was really risen, that He merely appeared to be in the tomb, and that all “real science” showed that Christ was risen.
That’s right, Ted. We’ve directly observed macroevolution and speciation. Many times. Would you like examples?
MattF: God can do anything, including make a world and Universe look ancient according to every scientific inquiry yet devised, even those that are independent of each other, and still have it be young.
Maz: Can God create the Universe in 6 days? Ofcourse He can….and He did, because He said He did.
I had a dream that from our perspective the creation of the universe appeared to be complete in 6 days. The strange thing was that things were moving much faster than we know are possible from our perspective (e.g. the speed of light was belittled). This reconciles the old appearance of the earth and the Biblical testimony for me, but doesn’t address God’s exact role in creation. On that—MattF seems to think that God set the clay into motion and it was shaped by the world He created; Maz seems to think that God set the clay into motion and shaped it with His own hands for the world.
I don’t know exactly, and either way He is ultimately responsible…so it doesn’t matter that much to me which one turns out to be true.
b baggins: MattF seems to think that God set the clay into motion and it was shaped by the world He created;
Well, this amounts to nitpicking, but not exactly. I think there’s a general flaw in thinking that the laws of the Universe and God act separately from one another somehow. God was (and is) much more than a lawgiver, much more than a magician, and much more than a referee.
In other words, I believe that God acts in everything.
Can I prove this? Well, no, of course not; but it’s somewhat emotionally disturbing to see Christians point at things we can’t currently explain and say, “That’s where God is!”, since this outlook makes God’s involvement in the Universe appear smaller and smaller as we discover more and more. It also seems to want to box God into only certain kinds of actions (“Just the ones we can’t explain, please”) when it comes to His interaction with creation and mankind, and I find that abhorrent.
mherman: “And I see Mike is still on about money when the question has nothing to do with it! ”
I was also agreeing with Darwin’s notion that only the strong survive. The strong he was referring to were those that species that could adapt to changes in the environment. Those that can’t adapt vanish. This is part of the evolutionary process. Example is the Saber tooth tiger, giant kangaroos, large faced bears, etc. This all fits quite well within Christian belief regarding creation. So no argument here.
This evolutionary process also exists in man’s history. Europe, once the center of fervent Christianity, began its decline in the mid to late 1800s. By the mid 1900s, Europe was a mere shell of its previous glorious past. When Friedrich Nietzsche declared God dead at the turn of the last century, he also accurately predicted the most violent era in European history….wars would become murderous events of the innocent. Freddy got it right.
So in the 20th Century, America rose with God’s blessings, but in the process we have followed the European model of destruction. While not the result of devastating wars, our empire was built on military expansion / influence and on fraud. By the end of the century, we rejected all of what God said regarding a nation, and our decline is now in process. The failure of nations to adapt along with their failure to see the future in terms of the past always lead to the same end….the end of all empires.
You, Kash, and MattF continue to think this is about money. You just don’t get it. It is about God, the Bible, and our living our lives as servants to the Lord and rejecting the world. You, Kash, and MattF have chosen to believe and live as the world would have you live. You sit here and debate an issue which will not affect one iota of your life here on earth, neither will it impact how you are judeged in eternity. The question is, “Can A Person Be Saved and Still Believe In Evolution?” Of course a Christian can believe in evolution. The old earth vs. new earth debate is not one of Critical beliefs of the Christian faith. Neither is the Rapture I might add. I do not think Christ will look upon the old earth / evolution believing Christians and say, “I am disappointed in you.” I do, however believe He will look upon our stewardship and say either ‘” ‘well done’ or ‘poorly done’ my good and faithful servant.”
One of the reasons I am agnostic on creation is that the OT does not describe the exact process by which God created the earth and all the life we see on it. I am not a scientist and therefore cannot argue the issue. Besides the issue has little to do with my testimony as a Christian or how I live my life. I spend much more time studying Scripture than I do anything else. I have once again asked my Pastor if I could borrow his copy of the New World Translation as I have focused my notes regarding the passages in the Bible that relate to the Trinity, Christ’s diety, and the Holy Spirit as a person of the Trinity. I want to use the JW’s book to show them that even their translation proves Christ is not a created being as their religious leaders suggest.
My heart goes out to the JW as this as a field for harvest.
But you and Kash continue to try to paint me into a box that is all about money. My life is all about God and His word. I look at everything through the lens of scripture, even the issue of evolution. While I disagree with Darwin on his evolutionary theories, I do find one area of agreement on the notion of survival, made popular in the area of economics by Herbert Spencer.
So I urge you and Kash to continue to believe the lie that government is the solution, when the solution is in God’s word. Your failure to adapt will lead to you and your loved ones being devoured by the predators in society, which are the banking interest and those connected to them. They are the ones that rule the earth from Satan’s house. God is in control, as He always has been, and He will not be mocked. Like Noah, survival in a world devoted to idol worship (includes Christians that have bought into the traditions of men) depends more than ever on TRUSTING God and taking Him at His word. Noah and his family survived because he adapted to conditions that were unknown prior to the flood. The traditions of men were that a flood was not possible. Noah and his family listened to God and survived. God’s word on our fiat currency could not be clearer yet most Christians, you and Kash in particular, refuse to listen. You would rather believe the traditions of men. Your failure to adapt will lead to your punishment here on earth. I cannot speak of your treasures in heaven, but I do wonder what God will say as you stand before him regarding your stewardship. He may ask you why you rejected part of His word in preference to the traditions of men.
Mike: You sit here and debate an issue which will not affect one iota of your life here on earth
With respect, I disagree.
Oh, sure, it may make no direct difference whether this fossil is about 4500 years old or about 450 million years old to how we live our lives. But at the root of the question is, it seems to me, a question with much deeper import: How do you get answers to questions about the natural world? What causes you to re-analyze your thoughts on the matter?
If your answer is, “This book is inspired, and my interpretation of it infallible; I believe it because the things I was taught about the interpretation must be true, and all things must be understood in light of that”, that implies different things than an answer like “I understand the results and limitations of tests performed to derive an answer; therefore, I accept that answer on these bases, which seem to have independent support — contingent on data that forces a re-analysis of the assumptions”. Sure, it makes no difference if you choose to believe your own interpretation of Scripture over careful observation and analysis when it comes to the age of a fossil, but what if the question is about who gets the food, or who gets the medicine, or how we determine guilt or innocence, or whether or not we should wage war?
These are not idle questions. Failure to understand the basis of our assumptions and interpretations has led to the torture and death of countless people in the past, and human nature being what it is, we are not immune to causing this pain in the future.
We cannot afford to accept teaching alone as the basis of our understanding of the natural world. God’s Word was not given to us in a vacuum, and Scripture even mentions that God’s invisible attributes are visible in creation; we can and must refine our understanding and ideas concerning the natural world by testing them, open to instruction as a little child, prepared to surrender every preconception and follow humbly to whatever abysses and answers our questions and investigations lead, or we stand to learn nothing. To do less would be shrugging off the responsibility we have as God’s children to seek Him as He is, and not our preferred image of Him.
MattF: “These are not idle questions. Failure to understand the basis of our assumptions and interpretations has led to the torture and death of countless people in the past, and human nature being what it is, we are not immune to causing this pain in the future.”
Mankind has been inflicting pain, torture, and death to his fellow human beings ever since he has been on the planet, which is long before Darwin or the theory of evolution ever came on the scene. Now I will admit to you that in the last century there have been political ideologies who foundations were set in Darwining Evolution. And since the theory contains natural selection, another way I guess in saying survival of the fittest, it only made sense to the proponents that we should help nature along. This is how the death camps were justified as the Eugenics movement here in the US, which was racially motivated to extinguish the lives of racially inferior fetuses thus reducing that population.
So I will grant you that in this respect the theory of evolution does impact our world, as it is a worldview. That said, no true Christian believing in Evolution would ever have promoted Fascism / Nazism or the eugenics movement here in the US. The Christian worldview would automatically override any worldview that regards any race superior over any other race. I use the term True Christian as many Christians did use racial superiority to keep certain citizens in their place. Such views were of course a complete misinterpretation of the Bible.
MattF:”we can and must refine our understanding and ideas concerning the natural world by testing them, open to instruction as a little child, prepared to surrender every preconception and follow humbly to whatever abysses and answers our questions and investigations lead, or we stand to learn nothing. To do less would be shrugging off the responsibility we have as God’s children to seek Him as He is, and not our preferred image of Him.” Now this is an interesting statement. We must seek Him, yet most of the Christians I talk to about our monetary system, Biblical economics, do not seem to grasp what God says about this particular issue. Few if any are even interested in researching the subject on any level. What part of Diverse Measures being an abomination unto the Lord is so hard to understand? Today gold is trading at $1052 and many are beginning to talk of its price rise. Silver is within 30 cents of $18. What people do not understand is that neither gold or silver are going up!!! The value of paper currency is going down. This is a planetary event. God will not be mocked. We will reap what we have sown. It’s all right there in His word….God could not be clearer as He mentioned this issue on more than 5 different occasions. Talk about a people engaged in the discussion about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as the ship goes down. What is coming is going to be very….VERY painful and will impact church ministries across the nation. As the economy sinks further, thanks to the actions of our “benevolent” government, and inflation heats up, thanks again to you know who, you will not only see ghost malls you will also see ghost churches as many are forced to close their doors. Our missionaries are coming home as the dollar continues to sink into the trash bin of all fiat currencies. Only then will Christians open their eyes and see that their misplaced faith in government has cost them dearly. The second American Revolution is here. “Who will lead it?” is the question. Will the Christian worldview bring us back to where we started…a Christian nation, or will some other worldview prevail; in which case the US will never recover. We will be Argentina who once enjoyed the highest living standard and one of the world’s strongest economies (in the top 10) back when they used what God gave us as money.
I am not a prophet nor claim to be one. All I do is study God’s word, look back on history, check out what we are doing as a nation, and come to the most logical conclusion. But, I do know how the prophets of the OT felt when they saw the catastrophe that would befall both the Northern and Southern Kingdoms. What I find interesting about this part of history is that God’s word was already in The Pentateuch, Deu.8:10-20 spells it out quite clearly. Did the prophets merely read God’s word and by accepting it knew what Israel faced or did God speak them as He did with Moses? No one can say for sure in all circumstances.
What I do know is the God is very clear on the issue of fiat money, which is a diverse measure. ON THIS ISSUE HE LEFT NO DOUBT, and yet we choose to ignore it, all the while we debate issues which have very little bearing on our lives or the ministries of the church. Amazing.
“This evolutionary process also exists in man’s history.” Actually, I do not accept the (mostly discredited) attempt by some to use a misapplication of “survival of the fittest” to human history. Social Darwinism fails on many fronts, most notably that evolution is about genetic variability over millions of years, not social behavior over hundreds or even thousands of years. Besides, I believe my Lord that “the meek shall inherit the earth” – hardly Darwinian. Homo sapiens may have undergone evolution to become the well dressed apes we are, but our relationship with God and our soul keeps us from having our futures dictated by its soulless, amoral, neither good nor bad machinations.
Kash: “Besides, I believe my Lord that “the meek shall inherit the earth” You are once again using scripture to say something it does not say. Jesus was “meek” but he was the strongest most courageous…not to mention righteous….man that ever lived or ever will live. In his human role, He was anything but meek as we define meek.
As for survival of the fittest, that term did not come from Dawin and no current evolutionist uses it. My use of it has to do as much with survival within a species as survival of a species itself. My point is that those that do not adapt to changing conditions go by way of the Dodo. I also believe in Santanya’s “Those that forget the lessons of history are damned (this is word he so appropriately used) to repeat the mistakes.”
Mike: Mankind has been inflicting pain, torture, and death to his fellow human beings ever since he has been on the planet, which is long before Darwin or the theory of evolution ever came on the scene. Now I will admit to you that in the last century there have been political ideologies who foundations were set in Darwining Evolution. And since the theory contains natural selection, another way I guess in saying survival of the fittest, it only made sense to the proponents that we should help nature along.
I would argue that the same problem I’ve been talking about is at root here: People not bothering to examine why they accept the ideas that they do. “Survival of the fittest” does not equate to “survival of the strongest individuals”, or even “survival of the most ideal individuals” (whatever the heck that’s supposed to mean). People have been fed an idea with a superficial similarity to a solid principle and have swallowed it without asking whether or not the foundational ideas were valid or even similar. (In other words, evolution is not the same as “social Darwinism”. In fact, if you like, I can point you to studies that indicate that the best survival strategy for a social species such as man is altruism.)
Similar abuses occurred in Christianity. For example:
Mike: That said, no true Christian believing in Evolution would ever have promoted Fascism / Nazism or the eugenics movement here in the US.
If you actually bother to read Mein Kampf (there are copies available for free online), Hitler does not base his desire to exterminate undesirables based on some kind of evolutionary framework. His ideas are a more modern reworking of some things that Martin Luther proposed — exterminating the Jews, for example, because (according to him) it was they who put Jesus to death. In other words, he didn’t try to justify his proposals with evolution; he tried to justify them with Christianity.
Searching the text for “Darwin”, “evolution”, or “natural selection” comes up empty. Searching for “Jesus”, “Savior”, or “Christ”, on the other hand… well, the results are sickening.
I should point out that I don’t agree with Hitler at all (I would hope that that’s obvious). But one shouldn’t think his ideas came from an evolutionary basis. One could make a strong case that he was a creationist; he made it clear, for example, that he only believed in the common “microevolution, not macroevolution” argument that so many creationists spout (volume i, chapter xi, Mein Kampf):
The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed.
He also succeeded in getting prayer in the schools, which many Christians claim to want; he reveals in Hitler’s Tabletalk that he did not accept that men evolved from apes; and his first edition of Mein Kampf referred to a creation only thousands of years old (p. 65), though this changes in later editions.
The official Nazi journal for lending libraries (Die Bücherei) forbade works that discuss evolution. Their guidelines for works to reject included
Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel).
(By the by, it’s interesting to note that even Hitler knew that Haeckel’s work was not meant to be supporting evidence of Darwin’s work — a point that seems to elude many prominent creationists today, such as Wells.)
Some people even say that Hitler was influenced to embrace evolution by Nietzsche — the only problem being that Nietzsche didn’t buy evolution, either (“Anti-Darwin”, The Will to Power):
Anti Darwin.- What surprises me most on making a general survey of the great destinies of man, is that I invariably see the reverse of what today Darwin and his school sees or will persist in seeing: selection in favour of the stronger, the better constituted, and the progress of the species …
I see all philosophers and the whole of science on their knees before a reality which is the reverse of the struggle for life as Darwin and his school understood it … The error of the Darwinian school became a problem to me: how can one be so blind as to make this mistake?
A similar point could be made for eugenics — its principles do not depend on evolution at all, and at least one prominent creationist (William J. Tinkle) thought that eugenics and selective human breeding would be a good thing.
But the creationist misrepresentation of Hitler’s stance or of eugenics is getting rather far afield of the point I mean to assert. It’s simply this: Without a willingness to examine the basis of our understanding and our assumptions critically, we stand in peril of being swayed by charismatic teachers who rationalize things with rhetoric that sounds similar to what we think we already understand and accept. This could do damage not just to those who follow blindly, but to many, many more people. And this would seem to be true no matter what you believe.
Mike: As for survival of the fittest, that term did not come from Dawin and no current evolutionist uses it.
Generally, no. I’d prefer to stay away from the phrase because people often get the wrong idea. Yes, the phrase carries some useful meaning, but it’s often misused to mean that “might makes right”, or that “more evolved” means “better”, or to say that evolution is prescriptive rather than descriptive. (The idea that a description of the way things are is the same as a description of the way things ought to be is commonly known as the naturalistic fallacy.)
Darnit, another big post of mine adressing Ted and Maz failed to get through…somehow…even though Worpress keeps telling me that it did every time I try to resend it. Annoying machines!
I guess I’ll just have to break everything down into little short posts, hmmm?
I’ll try again some other time.
bbaggins: #32. It does matter…….it matters to God that His children believe His Word. But many tend to want to twist and change it to fit a human concept of how He created. Evolution is a theory……. OK OK… I know the word ‘theory’ isn’t used the same by evolutionists!! (how convenient!) but it is still a theory that has no real, hard, conclusive evidence that it ever happened.
And why would God want to make a load of mutational mistakes while He is doing so…..a perfect omniscient God creating with mistakes along the way. Really!! Where is that in the scriptures??
This is my last word on the question because I know it won’t change most of the minds on this thread….they are set in concrete.
Sorry I missed your long post John!
“And why would God want to make a load of mutational mistakes while He is doing so…..a perfect omniscient God creating with mistakes along the way. Really!! Where is that in the scriptures??” Maz, you continue to equate “mutation” with “mistake”. That is putting a value judgement on an objective natural process. Mutations occur because they occur. Are you saying that God never intended DNA to mutate? Or that DNA doesn’t actually mutate, scientists just think it does because that would mean God allowed mistakes? Or that DNA isn’t under the control of God’s omnipotence? Or that DNA can’t really exist because it is never mentioned in the scriptures? Think through the implications of your insistence that God doesn’t “make a load of mutational mistakes” and the weak deity or absolute denial of reality that implies.
Mike: “Those that forget the lessons of history are damned (this is word he so appropriately used) to repeat the mistakes.” Yes, but everyone learns the lessons from history that they want to learn and ignore the lessons from history that they find inconvenient. The ‘lessons’ of history largely depend on whether the winning side or the losing side are studying it.
“Jesus was “meek” but he was the strongest most courageous…not to mention righteous….man that ever lived or ever will live. In his human role, He was anything but meek as we define meek.” He owned no property, he fought no wars, he allowed himself to be killed without lashing out in self defense. That is consistent with the definition of meek. The fact that many confuse “meek” with “weak” doesn’t mean that I do.
Survival of the fittest should be restated as “Survival of the adaptable.” This is fits nearly all areas of life. In sports, a coach that sticks to a limited style of offense or defense, which does take into consideration the players strengths and weaknesses will not be winning coach for long. In business it is the same. Cray Research, one of the very Big Mainframe computer companies of the 70s – 80s failed to adapt to the desk top revolution and that company became a shell of its past, while IBM saw the coming revolution in computers and adapted for the future. Spicies of animals are no different. The wolf was unable to adapt to man’s encroachment into his territory and was vitually wiped out through many parts of the Eastern US. Yet man’s attempts to extinguish the Cyote were abject failures. Whether it be in business, sports, or the natural world; the ability to adapt is equal to the ability to survive. Nations are no different, with the exception that only in unusal circumstances are a group of people wiped out. Nations rise and fall, and so does the standard of living within those nations. What usually happens is nations forget what made them great in the first place.
America achieved something never before achieved in human history. A nation where the individual is respected and given the power to choose his representatives while enjoying the greatest freedom known to the common man. It was a struggle but the ideals of the Revolution that promoted the individual and guaranteed him the right to life, liberty, and the PERSUIT of happiness. Notice that it did not promise Happiness just the right to attain it.
In today’s modern America, with the advent of Big government, we have lost all three. The guarantee of life is lost to the most innocent in our society. The guarantee of liberty is being lost as inflation and taxes rob the people of their labor thus making us slaves for part of the year. An the persuit of happiness is disappearing as achieving a higher standard of living becomes more difficult when government takes more of what you earn while it provides privileges to the few that are well connected.
What is happening in America is exactly what happened to the Roman Empire. The eastern empire lasted 800 years in large part becuase it did not debase its money; Emperor Constantine insured that with his decree that gold and silver in specific amounts would be guaranteed in the issuance of money. The penalty for a violation was death.
So instead of be the most fit to survive, we as a nation have decided to go on the same path that led to the destruction of most other great civilizations. Instead of adapting to the current crisis by analyzing what brought it on, we have decided to continue with the same failed system that brought the crisis on in the first place. All of which brings me back to the survival of the fittest or should I say survival of the one that adapts.
This is not philosophical horse manure; this is reality. Esoteric discussions are interesting but do not solve real world problems. We can all invision utopia but that can only exist in this world if one were the only person on the planet. Then of course one would be miserable from loneliness.
So let us continue with the very important discussion as to whether or not a Saved person can believe in evolution, while the nation goes to pieces, civil unrest and crime become problematic, people are impoverished, churches are forced to close their doors, and the scoudrels that created the problems become fabulously wealthy. You may call this pessimistic, then you must consider that the prophets of the OT were the true pessimist in their day.
I am often accused of being too pessimistic of which I say hog wash. I am an optimist at heart as I believe America will come through this crisis a better nation as we return to an asset backed currency and dependence of government is significantly reduced. I only agonize over the needless pain we will endure because the statist still have the people’s ear. In time the people will recognize that the problem is and has been the state just as our founders told us it would be. The difference between a pessimist and a realist can be seen in the definitions:
pes·si·mism (ps-mzm)
n.
1. A tendency to stress the negative or unfavorable or to take the gloomiest possible view: “We have seen too much defeatism, too much pessimism, too much of a negative approach” (Margo Jones).
2. The doctrine or belief that this is the worst of all possible worlds and that all things ultimately tend toward evil.
3. The doctrine or belief that the evil in the world outweighs the good.
Realism has many definitions which have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. However, this article exemplifies my position on the subject of economic and our security as a nation. Nouriel Roubini along with many others predicted this catastrophe. He, like the others, we called pessimists….their outlook was so gloomy that no one wanted to listen to them. Many were chided and made fun of, like Peter Schiff. Were they pessimists or realists? These same individuals are now telling us of an either worse crisis building as government intervention just makes matter worse….much much worse. Article: Doctor Doom
Doomsayers–Or Realists?
Nouriel Roubini, 06.04.09, 12:01 AM EDT
The economic crisis and the science of economics
I recently gave a talk at a conference organized by the Perimeter Institute (a leading theoretical physics research institution in Canada) on the implications of the economic crisis for the science of economics–specifically, the failure to predict financial crises and recessions. (The video of the talk is available here.)
The talk is a bit wonky and academic, but it provides some useful insight on why most failed to predict this crisis and what the lessons are for the economic profession. Actually, the economic literature is full of theoretical and empirical studies of financial crises (debt crisis, sovereign debt crises, systemic banking crises, currency crises, systemic household and corporate debt crises, asset and credit booms/bubbles and busts/crashes) and systemic risk.
Thus connecting this analytical and empirical literature to a careful analysis of the data would have suggested that the worst financial and economic crisis since the Great Depression was not a “Black Swan” event but rather a “White Swan.” In other words, it was not a random drawing from a distribution of events with a fat tail but actually predictable in advance given the rising macro and financial risks and vulnerabilities.
There were many economists and analysts who actually predicted, early on, many risks and vulnerabilities that would have led to a crisis. In many ways, I simply connected the dots in these different strands of thinking and warnings.
Among a few others, Robert Shiller was one of the earliest ones to study in detail and warn about a housing bubble. Kenneth Rogoff and a few other economists warned early on about the unsustainability of the U.S. current account deficits and of the global imbalances. Raghu Rajan presented one of the earliest and sharpest analyses of the agency problems and incentive distortions deriving from compensation schemes in financial institutions. Nassim Taleb and a few other finance scholars stressed the risk of fat-tail extreme events in financial markets. Paul Krugman–who received his Nobel for his trade contributions–was the father of currency and financial crisis theories in international macro; at least three generations of currency crisis models were developed from his seminal work. Stephen Roach, David Rosenberg and a few other financial sector analysts warned about the shopped-out, savings-less, bubble-addicted and debt-burdened U.S. consumer.
There were others. Niall Ferguson provided vivid comparisons between historical episodes of financial crises and current vulnerabilities. Hyun Shin and other scholars in academia provided early modeling of illiquidity and of the perverse effects of leverage during asset bubbles. William White and his colleagues at the Bank for International Settlements were among the first–following the scholarship of Hyman Minsky–to analyze how the “Great Moderation” may paradoxically lead to “Financial Instability,” asset and credit bubbles and financial crises.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/03/recession-obama-renminbi-north-korea-nuclear-iran-opinions-columnists-roubini.html
Roubini has become one of the most respected economist since much of what he said would happen, while most others contradicted him, did happen. I have provided the names of others and links to their reasoning, but most would rather listen to the cheerleaders that did see the crisis in the first place.
Remember the fittest survive not because they are stronger, but because they adapt to the changing envirnment.
It provides me no satisfaction knowing that I will be proved right as the middle class becomes as extinct as the dinosaurs. I pray I am wrong but so far it is all headed in the direction I said it would go. Unemployment is up, prices for goods and services continue to rise, and everyday we hear of another business failing. How can Christians support a system that creates so much misery? This is going to be a very brutal winter, especially for the US dollar and all those connected to it. The weakest in our society will be ruined if they survive. So I guess the law of jungle will prevail. What is Christian about that?
Mike: “The weakest in our society will be ruined if they survive.” You continue to conflate financial strength with spiritual strength. ‘Better the little that the righteous have than the wealth of many wicked’ Psalm 37:16, a few verses after ‘But the meek will inherit the land and enjoy great peace.’ (verse 11). That isn’t the same as having a strong portfolio diversified and heavily invested in precious metals to survive the imminent collapse of the US dollar, which is what you seem to equate it with.
Also, perhaps I misunderstand your reasoning, but it seems to me you start your post with arguing that everyone must adapt to survive, then end by saying the law of jungle isn’t Christian. I agree that the “law of the jungle” isn’t Christian, because Christians are called to rise above self-interest and herd-interest, but you seem to be arguing both ways. One of the many reasons I believe in Christ and the Bible is because it is obvious to me that humans are more than just highly evolved social animals: we have a spiritual dimension that we can either develop for the greater good and our own personal eternal salvation or suppress in a biology based drive for physical pleasures and material desires. Those who choose to live according to Christ by necessity disengage from the relentless pursuit of wealth for wealth’s sake, and are often viewed with sneering disdain by those who equate material possessions with security. What appears to some to be counter-adaptive is actually choosing not to join in the struggle for a bigger part of a perceived scarcity of resourses, but instead to work for ways to show the world that there is more than enough for all to have some but will never be enough for some to have all.
mherman: Evolution is a theory……. OK OK… I know the word ‘theory’ isn’t used the same by evolutionists!! (how convenient!) but it is still a theory that has no real, hard, conclusive evidence that it ever happened.
This definition of theory is not just used by evolution. It is used by all of science — as in atomic theory, germ theory, universal gravitational theory, and so on. You can’t call evolution out on the carpet for having something in common with all of science without attacking science as a whole. (You don’t understand this, and yet you claim to “love” science?)
And that evidence is there, though you continue to ignore it (see posts 401 and 411 in part 3 of “Should the church celebrate Darwin’s birthday?”). Evolution is one of the most well-supported theories science has ever devised. Your wishing it away and just asserting that it’s not there does not change this fact.
mherman: And why would God want to make a load of mutational mistakes while He is doing so…..a perfect omniscient God creating with mistakes along the way. Really!! Where is that in the scriptures??
It’s your assumption that the mutations were not intentional (that they were “mistakes”). As any follower of God will tell you, our inability to discern the reasons for the things God does — even when they seem needlessly cruel, or random, or spiteful — does not mean that God has no reasons, nor that He is not in control of the circumstances.
My Bible says that God is even in control of events and decisions that appear to be independently random [Proverbs 16:33]; why would He not be in control of constrained randomness?
Regardless, the evidence for those mutations is written large in our genetic code, and in the genetic code for all life, available for anyone to see (especially if you have an Internet connection). Can you explain what they’re doing there, and why they are there in numbers far too large for a species created “perfect” just a few thousand years ago? Can you explain why their position, composition, and number correspond perfectly to the idea that we descended from apes — even the noncoding parts?
mherman: This is my last word on the question because I know it won’t change most of the minds on this thread….they are set in concrete.
Physician, heal thyself.
You have done nothing to address actual evidence, even though I gave you a list when you were pretending to listen. You would get a lot further in changing the minds of your opponents — or mine, anyway — if you could show that your claims are consistent with known, directly-observed fact. Your response to evidence, over and over, is simply to pretend that it’s not there, to refuse to even acknowledge it or respond to it. That seems like a textbook example of a mind that refuses to change.
Kash: “he allowed himself to be killed without lashing out in self defense. That is consistent with the definition of meek.”
All true but he did make a whip then over turned the tables of the MONEY CHANGERS, then drove them from His Father’s house calling them thieves.
My oh my how times have changed. The money changes are robbing those with the least ability to defend themselves while enriching themselves beyond all reason, and those that follow Christ go around defending the MONEY CHANGERS. BTW, the weakest are the elderly. Especially in a bad economy, they have the hardest time getting jobs. Most live on fixed incomes and as their purchasing power declines, they are impoverished. All the while the financial engineers and the politicians (both Democrats and Republicans) that aided and abetted them get off Scott free and continue to work the system. This den of thieves cares only about its own power and wealth as they destroy the very nation they are bleeding dry.
The Bible is more than just a spiritual book. It is God’s plan for how we are to live our lives, and part of that plan is to resist evil. I already know of one family that has broken up due to this financial crisis. Families are losing their homes at a rate not seen since the Great Depression. I suppose you rejoice at their suffering since it makes them spiritually stronger. Jesus loved the poor and helpless so I guess you will be estatically happy when most of the middle class fits that bill. Christians can then go around preaching the Bible to them….oh I forgot, Christians will be in the same boat as far as living on this earth goes.
I agree with you that eternity and our relationship with the Lord is the most important thing on earth. However, Jesus was concerned about people’s physical needs as well as their spirtual needs, otherwise He would not have healed the sick or raised the little girl or the widows son…Lazarus was His friend so some could argue that He raised Him out of friendship. I recognize that His miracles were to prove His relationship to the Father, however He also knew that first you must heal then you can preach.
But my primary concern is the direction this nation takes as the coming revolution unfolds and it will unfold. When inflation takes hold, capital will flee the country. Credit will become extremely expensive and hard to get as government soaks up more and more. Eventually there will be no other alternative but to establish a new currency. By then the elderly, just about all 78 million of the Baby Boomers will have seen their life savings vanish. Cans of cat food may very well be beyond their ability to pay. Just remember, Wall Street is providing its executives $70 billion in bonuses this year. Goldman Sachs is providing $20 billion of that tidy little sum. And what are the bonuses for? The same thing they were for the past few years; the manufacturing and sales of Over the Counter derivatives which go by such exotic names as Credit Default Swaps which brought down Lehman Brothers and AIG.
Why have there been no prosecutions? Much of this occurred during the Bush Administration. Surely the Democrats would love to pin this disaster on the Republicans. Answer: No prosecutions because the Democrats are just as guilty and Goldman Sachs continues to run Treasury and the whold Obama administration just as it ran Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, and Johnson. I stop there because Kennedy tried to break the power of the Fed the summer before he was murdered. Ike warned of the Military Industrial complex so he knew the connections between Military contractors, the banks who finance them, and the government that depends on the goodies provided by both. The merger of business and government is not socialism, it is Fascism. America is not turning into a socialist state, it is becoming a Fascist state.
By the way eugenics is alive and well. According to Pastor J.C. Watts, formerly a member of Congress, 78% of Planned Parenthood clinics (you know the group that promotes abortion on demand and encourage pregnant women to have abortions) are located in minority neighborhoods. Is is right in his stats? BTW, Hitler used Christianity and the centuries of antisemitism to promote his political beliefs, one of which was that of a master race. To day his beliefs were more closely tied to Christianity than to his desire to erradicate defective races is like blaming an SUV for an accident instead of the drunk driver.
MattF: “You have done nothing to address actual evidence, even though I gave you a list when you were pretending to listen. You would get a lot further in changing the minds of your opponents — or mine, anyway — if you could show that your claims are consistent with known, directly-observed fact. ” Classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. I’m coming to your defense mherman. Although you and I have disagreed, and that is putting it mildly, I have to give you credit for at least checking out the other side of the story. You did spend time on Doug website and at least came to the conclusion that many of his statements made a lot of sense. Then you agreed to read Hank H’s book, The Apcalyspe Code in order to get a different point of view on the Rapture. That is more than I can say for “certain people” on this site. At least where it counts the most, a Christian worldview that actually makes a difference, you are willing to at least check out other opinions that are based on facts.
For whatever it is worth, I do not debate evolution because I am not a scientist and do not want to spend years studying a subject of which I have very little interest. I know just enough about science to make my life livable and that is good enough for me. A second suggestion to consider, just because someone claims to have a certain amount of knowledge on any subject, it does not mean they are infallible. The only infallible book I have ever read was the Bible….God is the ultimate expert. I find the book extremely accurate in all areas of life….not just the spiritual aspects. It is a very practical book that speaks of everything from eternity, to science, to practical living, to health. to justice, to economics, to marriage, to international relations, to raising children, to avoiding the pitfalls we humans create for ourselves. The Bible spends more time teaching us how we are to relate to each other than on just about any other issue other than the nature of God. Somehow I just don’t think God is all that interested in Evolutionary theory. I think He would rather have us spend more time knowing Him….seeking His Face than arguing over a theory which if true or not true does not change a thing as far as the human condition.
Maz post 11,
It’s great to hear from you again Maz, I hope that you are doing well these days.
I was TRYING to be sympathetic, but instead of a “Awww, that’s so thoughtful of you John” I get a “What? How DARE YOU call me an old lady! I’m NOT old![image of a man getting whopped across the face with a big frying pan]WhapPIIING!
Your only about seven years older than my mother[I think, anyway. I'd ask her to be sure, but I'm...uh..."concerned" about how she'd react to the question. Maybe if I asked her from another room, around the corner of a wall in another room, or perhaps through a wall while she's in another room, I'd be able to make it outside in good speed before she could get to me. Why are women so darned touchy about their age, anyway? Geeze!]so from now on I shall think of you as my honorary Aunt. How does that grab you? Auntie Maz from across the pond[toothy grin].
Hopefully THIS post is short enough to get through.
Mike (re evolution): a theory which if true or not true does not change a thing as far as the human condition
Untrue. It is used to develop better vaccines, better antibiotics, and to figure out where to dig for fossil fuels, for starters.
So much for your much-vaunted “checking out the other side of the story”. At least I’m bothering to try to do a little research on your claims.
Aw, I couldn’t just let those little things sit by themselves.
Evolution is also used to understand the virulence of parasites; it helps us use natural resources wisely through its predictions concerning biogeography; it unifies biology under a central theory (removing it from being a useless collection of facts, and suggesting productive new areas of research); it provides a basis for bioinformatics, a billion-dollar industry, with its assumption of descent with modification; it is used to manage fisheries for greater yields; it is used to induce beneficial mutations in plant stock; it is used to create better pesticides, removing pests and producing greater yield in our agriculture; it helps us retrieve species from the brink of extinction (e.g., the kakapo bird); it shapes public health policy; it predicts unknown gene function, which aids in pharmaceutical development; it helps us idenitify disease reservoirs; it helps us predict the step-by-step transmission of disease, permitting greater control over its spread and treatment; it allows us to identify micro-organisms that cannot be cultured or recognized except through phylogenetic analysis; it helps us create and enhance antibiotics; it helps us create and enhance flavors; it helps us create and enhance strains of bacteria to break down biohazards; it helps us create and enhance enzymes; it helps us create and enhance biopigments; it helps us discern the function and folding of proteins and enzymes; it aids in creating genetic algorithms, which have applications in architecture, data mining, electrical engineering, finance, geophysics, astrophysics, aerospace engineering, pattern recognition, military strategy, robotics, materials engineering, and systems engineering; it was the basis for the creation of countless statistical analysis techniques, including linear regression analysis and analysis of variance, which are used in innumerable ways to study many other things; its analysis techniques can be applied to determining the history of manuscripts (including Biblical ones!) and languages (including Biblical ones!); and, in a non-trivial sense, it satisfies some kinds of curiosity and inspires others.
Your turn, now, Mike. Name one practical application of creationism, other than keeping the dishonest and the deceived gainfully employed.
Well MattF., Mike DID state within post 50 that he didn’t want to study evolution for years due to a lack of interest and was not a scientist. Perhaps he will do more research into the matter in the future.
By the way, Happy Columbus Day everybody[or "Explorers Day", or whatever else politically correct people might call it in schools these days.]! I hope you all had a good one.
Mike: I know just enough about science to make my life livable and that is good enough for me.
Sadly, you are not alone among the uncurious.
Mike: A second suggestion to consider, just because someone claims to have a certain amount of knowledge on any subject, it does not mean they are infallible. The only infallible book I have ever read was the Bible….God is the ultimate expert.
Agreed. But this does not necessarily mean that a particular teacher’s interpretation of the Bible is accurate. Just a few hundred years ago, Bible believers were killing people who did not agree with their Biblical defense of the idea that the Earth does not move — a notion which is directly spelled out in 1 Chronicles and Psalms — and who believed what direct observation told them instead. Just because I believe the Bible is accurate does not mean that I think I have it completely figured out.
John: Perhaps he will do more research into the matter in the future.
We can hope. After all, it’s his contention that it is “a Christian worldview that actually makes a difference, you are willing to at least check out other opinions that are based on facts.” Time will tell.
Matt F. In post 31 you said that we have observed speciation and macroevolution many times. O.K. – when and where?
Ted: Matt F. In post 31 you said that we have observed speciation and macroevolution many times. O.K. – when and where?
A fair question, but I warn you: “many” means “many”.
One of my favorite examples, Helacyton gartleri, is an autonomous single-celled organism that used to be a woman named Henrietta Lacks.
A new species of mosquito has speciated from Culex pipens in the London Underground.
Sticker’s sarcoma (a.k.a. canine transmissible venereal tumor) is a single-celled organism that used to be a dog (or a wolf).
Primula kewensis (a plant). Phylloscopus trochiloides (greenish warblers). Hoplitis (Alcidamea) producta (bees). Rhagoletis pomonella (the apple maggot fly). Anopheles gambiae (mosquitoes). Nasonia vitripennis/gratuli (wasps). There are plenty of others — stickleback fish, cichlids, the salamander Ensatina, Peromyces maniculatus, Parus major/minor, Halcyon chloris, Zosterops, Lalage, Pernis, the Larus argentatus group, Hoplitis (Alcidamea) producta, Spalax ehrenbergi…
All of these and more have been directly observed in relatively recent times; I can provide citations if you like. I also advise you to read Catherine A. Callaghan’s “Instances of Observed Speciation”; or “Observed Instances of Speciation” by Joseph Boxhorn; or “Some More Observed Speciation Effects” by Chris Stassen et al.; or “Speciation” by John W. Kimball; or “At the Water’s Edge” by Carl Zimmer; or “Darwin’s Cathedral” by Wilson; or “Lying Stones of Marrakesh” by Sterelny; or “Sex and Death” by Sterelny and Griffiths.
MattF: “Bible believers were killing people who did not agree with their Biblical defense of the idea that the Earth does not move — a notion which is directly spelled out in 1 Chronicles and Psalms — and who believed what direct observation told them instead. Just because I believe the Bible is accurate does not mean that I think I have it completely figured out.”
MattF, everything our senses take in is an interpretation. When it comes to ideas, such as those presented in the Bible, we must be certain that we are at least interpreting what is written in the way the author intended us to interpret it.
Your example of Bible Believers misinterpreting the Bible then persecuting scientist that realized it was the earth that moved, either misread scripture then used it for their own political gain or knew the truth but deliberately misread scripture for their own desire for power.
Please provide the passages in the Bible that provide evidence for the geocentric theory.
BTW, many in the scientific community disputed the notion that the earth revolved around the sun as did all of the planet. The term paradigm shift comes from science as does the term paradigm resistence, which is self-descriptive.
MattF: “Bible believers were killing people” Sorry, but I doubt that. A true believer would never do such a think; however a wicked / evil person would certainly use the scriptures if he could twist them to justify his actions. Hitler was one such person. It is obvious from his speech, diaries of men that knew him, and from his own pen that he nothing but disdain for Christ and Christianity. He was not however above using the Jesuit order of the Catholic church as a model to establish the SS.
Seriously, Mike? You don’t think that the perpetrators of the Inquisition, the knights of the Crusades, the people on both sides of the wars of the Reformation who happily slaughtered each other were Bible believers? How can you claim that Bible believers have never killed anyone in the name of their very belief in the Bible? Talk about revisionist history!!! Very sincere Bible believing Christians who put their understanding of the Bible above all other interpretations and evidence to the contrary are among some of the most dangerous people on earth, because they believe God WANTS them to slaughter anyone who doesn’t believe the way they do. They make an idol of the very scripture that tells them not to have idols. You can accuse them of poor exegesis and a propensity to violence, but you can not deny that they believe the Bible. Do you not think the man who shot George Tiller believed the Bible???
You (and all other contemporary evolutionists) are equivocating on the term “species.” You are assuming that “species” means the same thing as the biblical concept of “kind” or created “baramin” and it doesn’t. Sure, there is variation and small mutational changes on the lower levels but you (and the books you cite) still provide NO REAL EXAMPLES of speciation (or evolution – whichever term you like). Nice try however. The examples you gave are akin to the peppered moth example that was once offered as “proof” of evolution but then shown to be environmental changes within moths. Moths always stay moths. But even if your sparse (you said many) examples were true – evolution still has to account for ALL of life and life is extremely diverse! Scientists are still cataloging new “species”
You also should read up on molecular convergence. Mutation and natural selection (or whatever evolutionary mechanism you desire) is utterly DEVOID of accounting for molecular convergence in biochemical systems. Evolutionary biologists classify five different types of convergence:
1. Functional convergence describes the INDEPENDENT origin of biochemical functionality on more than one occasion.
2. Mechanistic convergence refers to the multiple INDEPENDENT emergences of biochemical processes that use the same chemical mechanisms.
3. Structural convergence occurs when two or more biomolecules INDEPENDENTLY adopt the same three dimensional structure.
4. Sequence convergence occurs when when either proteins or regions of DNA arise separately but have identical amino acid or nucleotide sequences respectively.
5. Systematic convergence is the most remarkable of all. This type of molecular convergence describes the INDEPENDENT emergence of identical biochemical systems.
According to one biologist: “The explosion in the number of examples of molecular convergence is unexpected if life results from historical sequences of chance evolutionary events. Yet, if life emanates from a Creator, its reasonable to expect he would use the same designs repeatedly. These creations would give the appearance of multiple independent origin events when viewed from an evolutionary vantage point.”
Also how do you explain the Cambrian explosion & the abrupt appearance of extremely complex organisms in the fossil layers without any precursors? And that’s just the tip of the Antarctica sized iceberg for evolution. You still have to contend with information theory and how it utterly undermines evolutionary pathways (see Hubert Yockey; W. Dembski – “No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased Without Intelligence”)
You seem to be totally convinced that Darwinian evolution is true but where is the miracle in that if creation is the greatest miracle of all? And most (if not all) evolutionists are complete and militant atheists. Are atheistic evolutionists accountable for knowing that there is a God from His creation? If so, then how??? The Bible says… “all men without excuse about knowing God’s existence, His power and His eternal nature…from the things that have been made (Rom. 1:18-23)”?
What’s left for God to do? Sound’s a lot like Deism. Explain how God using of evolutionary processes to create life is not like deism?
Post 61. is a response to MattF post 58.
Ted, glad to see your still coming back[smile].
I’ll adress your posts at the beginning of this thread later this evening[I already did it twice before, but it didn't show up for some annoying reason.], but until then, I strongly suggest that you read through all of the past shows dealing with the topic of evolution/Natural Science. Some of them are listed within Apologetics. It’s a lot of reading[hope you can read fast]but you’ll be able to see what’s been asked, answered, as well as learn more about the people your debating with. It will also help you to bring new questions and information into the debate[hopefully]. Good luck!
Later.
Mike: MattF, everything our senses take in is an interpretation. When it comes to ideas, such as those presented in the Bible, we must be certain that we are at least interpreting what is written in the way the author intended us to interpret it.
Your example of Bible Believers misinterpreting the Bible then persecuting scientist that realized it was the earth that moved, either misread scripture then used it for their own political gain or knew the truth but deliberately misread scripture for their own desire for power.
Yup.
But my point is that these people used passages from the Bible to excuse what they were doing, passages which appeared to agree with their preconceived notions about how the Universe really is, and on which they were unwilling to reconsider their interpretation. I agree with your later point that their actions betrayed them as being rather — um — selective in their application of the Scripture, and that this indicates something deeper and darker, but this part of history ought to underscore the idea that we can use observation and understanding to help us determine which interpretations we might consider and which we should reject.
Mike: Please provide the passages in the Bible that provide evidence for the geocentric theory.
Keep in mind that I don’t think that using these passages to argue for geocentrism is a valid interpretation; I only mean to point out that they have been used this way. Here are some (NKJV):
1 Chronicles 16:30: “Tremble before Him, all the earth. The world is also firmly established, It shall not be moved.”
Psalm 93:1: “The LORD Reigns, He is clothed with majesty; The LORD is clothed, He has girded Himself with strength. Surely the world is established, so that it cannot be moved.”
Psalm 96:10: “Say among the nations, ‘The LORD reigns; The world is also firmly established, It shall not be moved; He shall judge the peoples righteously.’”
Psalm 104:5: “You who laid the foundations of the earth, So that it should not be moved forever,”
In addition, they pointed out that when Joshua told the Sun and Moon to stop so that the Israelites could prevail in battle [Joshua 10], he told the Sun to stop, not the Earth [verse 12].
Now, modern types tend to look at passages like these and declare something like, “Clearly, these passages are poetic/figurative, not descriptive of the structure of the Solar System.” That sort of understanding is made much simpler in retrospect among people who agree on what the facts are concerning the Earth’s movement; other passages, even in the Psalms, continue to be used by modern scholars who argue that the Bible is scientifically accurate and describes known scientific principles (for example, I’ve heard some argue that Psalm 8:8 describes ocean currents, or that Psalm 102:22-26 is a description of entropy). I’d argue that people should have been (and should continue to be!) careful and willing to re-examine their interpretations all along, being humble before Scripture, admitting that they didn’t know everything, and being diligent students to work out what the scientific findings of their day might mean in terms of winnowing the truth out of God’s Word (especially when some of those findings were not the result of pointless pontification, but were the result of actual observation).
I should point out that preachers have accused those who presume to “believe” that the Earth revolves and rotates of being compromised, of preferring science to God’s Word, and lots of other rather ugly things that I can give citations for if you like — even up to the present moment. (It was much more common in the past, but there were very influential preachers who taught this way a little over a century ago — and some still do, insisting that notions about the Earth moving are little more than a Satanic conspiracy to draw people away from Christ and from believing in Scripture’s accuracy.)
Mike: BTW, many in the scientific community disputed the notion that the earth revolved around the sun as did all of the planet. The term paradigm shift comes from science as does the term paradigm resistence, which is self-descriptive.
Right. Eventually, as the weight of evidence pours in, and as observation, experiment, and discovery show that some explanations are consistent with the way the Universe works and some are not, our understanding changes. I mentioned this in my attempt to describe how science never claims to possess the truth — only to converge upon the truth. We never have it exactly right, but the process of collecting evidence can reveal that some explanations are not right.
Mike: It is obvious from his speech, diaries of men that knew him, and from his own pen that he nothing but disdain for Christ and Christianity.
I don’t doubt for a second that you’re right, but do you have any citations for this? It would be useful to put the Christian-esque rhetoric he used into context.
Mike: He was not however above using the Jesuit order of the Catholic church as a model to establish the SS.
There are a lot of things he wasn’t above.
John: ” Perhaps he will do more research into the matter in the future.”
I doubt it for it is not my calling. I accepted the Lord in 1996, at the ripe old age of 49. My hunger for the word became insatiable. I read through the Bible twice before I realized that there was much of it that I did really understand. My love of history led me on a quest to understand exactly what the writers meant to communicate throughout the ages. I also realized that the Bible was not written to us but written for us. I started with commentaries but soon realized that there were differences of opinion regarding interpretation by the best Biblical Scholars. If you read 5 commentaries on Daniel you will get 5 different interpretations of several of the passages. I now have 2 inch notebook of typewritten notes on the Bible. Instead of researching each book I decided to research themes, such as the passages that relate to Christ’s diety or the Holy Spirit as a person of the Trinity.
At the beginning of this decade, I came back to an area of interest that I had persued before I accepted Christ. That area was economics and the markets. However, my renewed interest now had a new twist. My worldview had changed, and now I began to see economics in light of scripture. To make a long story short, I soon realized that in the area of economics the US had strayed way off course from it Biblical roots as well as from the Constitution itself. Before the first year of the new millenium ended, I realized that the US dollar was headed lower, precious metals were going much higher as were commodities, and the US would face a series of crisis that could very well have a serious impact on our economy and our standard of living.
Starting in 2002, I began telling family, friends, neighbors, and people I would meet that showed an interest in the subject, that a major financial crisis was going to unfold within a few short years. I also suggested investments in gold, silver, and the whole commodities complex. My call was to begin to exit dollar assets and diversify into commodities and foreign stocks in natural resource countries.
By 2004, I saw that the Fed had inflated another Bubble, this time in real estate, and that bubble would bring the financial system down. The reason I knew this was due to the fact that OTC derivatives, most of which were tied to real estate had reached $400 trillion. By 2006, OTC derivatives stood at $600 trillion. These financial weapons of mass destruction were manufactured by the financial institutions to make the creators of these unregulated instruments faboulously wealthy. They cared not one bit that if even 1% of these derivatives unwound against the holders, the whole financial system would be in jeopardy. This was greed on a scale never before seen in human history and the backer of this casino was the Fed, with payment due on failure guaranteed by the American people. Government during the past 20 years became almost totally controlled by the Big Financial Corporation who also controlled the Fed. America had achieved Woodrow Wilson’s worst fear, that we would be the worst governed nation because power would be concentrated in the hands of a few men. He said this in 1916 while lamenting that he had ever signed the legislation that brought the Fed into existence.
I have often asked God why I had suddenly developed this burning desire to investigate economics and the markets through the lens of scripture. Of course I received no audible answer, but in my heart I knew that I had to warn as many people as possible so they could protect themselves. Unfortunately, most considered my some sort of nut case. They dismissed my please as the ramblings of another doomsayer. But when the disaster began to unfold some began to see that I had been right in my warnings. I know of 2 individuals that actually began to quietly accumulate gold and silver as far back as 2003. One couple in my church sold most of their investment real estate in 2006 missing the real estate crash. Several people with 401ks exited the market during 2007 and missed the stock market crash. I sent out an email (I began emailing people in 2002) on March 6th telling people to recommit money to the market in their 401ks as it looked like we had reached a bottom. (I study market cycles and am quite familiar with technical analysis and subscribe to the Lowry Report.).
Some of the people on this site, like Kash and mherman, know I called the low in gold and started a count down to the dollar’s decline this past summer. I have made market predictions that have been remarkably accurate. None of this is by my own wisdom, as it all comes from God. Eccl. 1-3 is the very first written works on market cycles. Since then many economists have become somewhat famous in their own area of expertise by writing books on cycles.
Like I said, I do not know why God gave me this burning desire for not only His word but for economics and markets. I do know that at least a few people have managed to perserve wealth and avoid catastrophe. Those that followed the Wall Street propaganda that one should invest in the market and leave the money in or real estate is safe because it NEVER goes down; have been devastated over the past 2 years. The game is rigged by the greediest people man has ever known. To enrich themselves they have taken control of government and are now impoverishing people that have worked all their lives to save for their retirement. I call them ‘banksters’ as they control the money supply. Their power and wealth is immense. They will bring down this one great nation if we don’t get them under control. What I find truly amazing that there are Christian that actually support this horribly corrupt system. They believe….have faith in the State instead of the Lord their God. This is where my heart lies. Evolution is an interesting topic, but in the grand scheme of things is not very relevant. Besides, God has another calling for me, which is why I provide my emails to people free of charge.
Ted: “What’s left for God to do? Sound’s a lot like Deism. Explain how God using of evolutionary processes to create life is not like deism?” Well, for one thing, you are ignoring the basic message of salvation if you think that the main point of the Bible is that God created everything in 6 days without evolution. What is left for God to do if evolution is a fact? Umm, how about give mankind souls and the means for eternal life and forgiveness of sins.
MattF, in reference to your passages regarding scripture’s description of a geocentric theory, which was proposed by Ptolemy who was not exactly a Christian, how would explain what we mean today when we say:
1. The sun rose in the east and set in the west. 2. The Big dipper revolves around the North Star. 3. The sun blazed across the sky as pilgrims died of thirst. 4. The attacks of 9-11 were earth shattering. 5. Larry Csonka was a bull running through the wall set up by the defense.
I mention this because the Bible is full of passages that use language that if taken in a wooden literal sense are totally false, just as 5 examples I gave cannot be understood without realizing that the language is figurative. Those that say we must interpet the Bible word for word do not know that in doing so they are really missing what the author is trying to tell us. Even numbers which are specific and should not leave room for any doubt are used symbolically. For example: God owns all the cattle on 1000 hills. What does 1000 represent? Is it an exact number or does it symbolize that God owns them all? When I tell my kids, “I;ve told you a million times!” Have I been keeping track of the exact number of times I told them something or am I being figurative. Read Ps.18, which is about God saving David from the hand of Saul. If you interpret that in a wooden literal way, you have a problem because none of what is said in that chapter actually happened. The Bible lies.
This is the problem so many Christians have with the Olivet discourse, Matt. 24 and the Book of Revelation. In Matt.24, Jesus said He would return in clouds with power and great glory before THIS GENERATION, the generation He was speaking to, would pass. As a matter of fact He stated a number of things would happen that many say did not happen. The Christian apologists that believe in the Pretribulation Rapture of the Church explain this as, “this generation” means the generation which experiences these things so Jesus was talking about a generation in the future. But in my opinion this does not wash, as the words “this generation” in the original Greek are the same words Jesus used speaking about the generation in His ministry on earth. Bart Eherman uses this passage to prove Jesus was not who He said He was as He made a false prophecy. I say Bart is wrong as are the Pretribbers. Everything Jesus said would happen, including His coming in clouds in Power with Great Glory, did indeed happen before the Generation had passed.
My point is that more than just a few have misinterpreted scripture. Scripture is not mistaken, it is the hermaneutics of the reader that is failing.
Ted: You (and all other contemporary evolutionists) are equivocating on the term “species.”
You brought up speciation as one of the things you wanted. I didn’t. Did you mean something different by “speciation”?
Ted: You are assuming that “species” means the same thing as the biblical concept of “kind” or created “baramin” and it doesn’t.
Nope. I included instances of speciation and macroevolution, just like you asked for. Look more closely at the examples of, for example, Helacyton gartleri and Sticker’s sarcoma.
Ted: Sure, there is variation and small mutational changes on the lower levels but you (and the books you cite) still provide NO REAL EXAMPLES of speciation (or evolution – whichever term you like).
You’ve read them all? Impressive.
What special definition of “speciation” are you using, Ted?
Ted: The examples you gave are akin to the peppered moth example that was once offered as “proof” of evolution but then shown to be environmental changes within moths.
It was never explained as anything but that. It’s corroborative evidence of the idea of descent with modification. It’s not evidence of every concept wrapped up into the theory of evolution, nor was it ever claimed that it was.
Theories are a synthesis of many different kinds of data.
Ted: But even if your sparse (you said many) examples were true – evolution still has to account for ALL of life and life is extremely diverse!
Yes. In much the same way, universal gravitational theory must describe the behavior all kinds of mass, even though there are many different kinds of mass out there. We have reasons to believe that different mixtures of different substances will not cause the mass involved to behave differently (gravitationally), even though we can’t possibly see every possible mixture of different substances out there.
You’re throwing out a giant red herring, in other words. Theories are an attempt to describe general behavior. They stand or fall as new evidence comes to light that corroborates or denies the explanation. They are not an indication that we have observed every possible example (rather far from it, actually, for any theory you care to name).
Ted: You also should read up on molecular convergence. Mutation and natural selection (or whatever evolutionary mechanism you desire) is utterly DEVOID of accounting for molecular convergence in biochemical systems.
Uh, no. Molecular convergence is a rather large indication that evolution is correct — in particular, the concept of evolutionary opportunism. If everything were specially created, we would expect much less parahomology and analogy (ideally, none, or at least in a manner inconsistent with genetic lineage).
In other words, evolution expects molecular convergence.
It is not inconceivable that things will develop identical (or very similar) developmental pathways in different lineages. It’s not even a surprise. If there’s a good design that works, and getting to it is composed of a series of straightforward steps with advantages present in weach step, why wouldn’t it happen more than once?
What evolution provides us that creationism does not is a reason for all this convergence, when we also see that some things that perform the same function in different lineages are also very different, and that each different design is constrained to a single lineage (e.g., wings in pterodactyls, birds, insects, and bats).
Ted: According to one biologist: “The explosion in the number of examples of molecular convergence is unexpected if life results from historical sequences of chance evolutionary events. Yet, if life emanates from a Creator, its reasonable to expect he would use the same designs repeatedly. These creations would give the appearance of multiple independent origin events when viewed from an evolutionary vantage point.”
From The Cell’s Design — written by Dr. Fazale Rana, a biochemist. His book only works if it turns out that science cannot find a natural cause for the issues he describes, which cannot be known a priori. He also makes rather large intuitive leaps, e.g., that “Humanity’s mental capacity reflects God’s image”, without defending these notions hermeneutically or scientifically.
In other words, it’s a rather technical-langauge-heavy “God of the gaps” argument, which carries precisely zero scientific weight.
I should remind you that scientific findings are determined by observation, experiment, and discovery, not quotes.
I should also point out that some of this very same molecular evidence can be used to point out that if God specially designed each organism instantaneously and fron scratch, He is lazy, cruel, or inept. Some of this evidence appears in posts 401 and 411 of part 3 of “Should the church celebrate Darwin’s birthday?”. Note that molecular and morphological convergence are listed.
Ted: Also how do you explain the Cambrian explosion & the abrupt appearance of extremely complex organisms in the fossil layers without any precursors?
Let’s be clear. The Cambrian explosion was sudden in geologic terms. It was not as sudden as, say, a week; it may have been as short as five to ten million years, but it wasn’t that short. It was not the origin of complex life (the Doushantuo Formation in China shows evidence of multicellular life some 20 to 50 million years prior, for example). It was not the origin of broad biological diversity. It contains transitional fossils (e.g., lobopods between worms and arthropods). Only some “groups” appear here; some appeared before, some appeared after (at least six animal phyla appeared well before; and almost all animal groups that people think of today, such as flowering plants, insects, reptiles, mammals, birds, and spiders, don’t show up until well afterward.
It’s generally understood that several factors contributed to the Cambrian explosion: the evolution of “hard parts”, making for much easier fossilization; larger organisms becoming more widespread; Earth coming out of a global ice age just prior; the recent evolution of Hox genes (which determine body plans); the introduction of significant amounts of molecular free oxygen; and unusual amounts of phosphate deposits in shallow seas during the time, greatly increasing the fossilization rate.
Life we have found fossilized during the Cambrian period was very unlike anything alive today; most of the phylum-level body plans didn’t appear until much later. This does not seem to agree with the notion that God created all “kinds” as static. (If we use the number of cell types as a measure of complexity, complexity has been increasing in nearly monotonic fashion from the beginning of the Cambrian to the present.)
The Cambrian explosion is also not unique. There are other (relatively) rapid diversifications of life in the fossil record; one of the most extensive, for example, was during the Ordovican period.
Ted: And that’s just the tip of the Antarctica sized iceberg for evolution. You still have to contend with information theory and how it utterly undermines evolutionary pathways (see Hubert Yockey; W. Dembski – “No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased Without Intelligence”)
Dembski’s No Free Lunch wildly misrepresents information theory to attempt to make its point. A quick synopsis of why:
Complex specified information does not signify deisgn; it simply indicates copying (a pattern matches a specification either by coincidence, by both patterns being constrained identically, or by some kind of copying — and the “specified complexity” criterion eliminates the first two, leaving only copying); and nonintelligent machines can select between different possibilities (e.g., dice). Even if the point were valid, no design theorist has ever shown that complex specified information even exists in life. It has always been known that evolution uses information from the environment — we’ve simply called it adaptation; you may recall an obscure author named Darwin who wrote something about the subject once, but it doesn’t imply specific design.
Evolutionary algorithms work, giving us strong confidence that they’re based on reality. (If math contradicts observation, the math is misapplied, or wrong, or irrelevant.) NFL theorems consider the average of all fitness functions, but finding one above average is trivial (if you want something that performs well according to some metric, find a fitness function that measures that metric). And finally, NFL theorems don’t even apply to evolution. (NFL theorems are considered to apply when the fitness function is independent of the algorithm; evolving populations affect each other and the ennvironment, which is not a good way to keep the fitness function independent of the algorithm.)
Dembski himself later wrote that NFL theorems are a bad way to represent his concepts of displacement and conservation of information (“The ARN Design Forum: What genetic algorithms can do”, William Dembski, 06 Nov 2002), so what exactly was his point?
I can go into more detail if you like.
Your turn, now, Ted. How do you determine what a “kind” is? What mechanism do you propose that keeps them static? How can we test whether or not this mechanism exists? To pick some extreme examples, if Helacyton gartleri and Sticker’s sarcoma don’t count as changes in “kind”, what does?
Ted: You seem to be totally convinced that Darwinian evolution is true but where is the miracle in that if creation is the greatest miracle of all?
Wow. Too many to pick. Let me try one:
God tells us that He has determined exactly which place and time all of us should live in so that none of us are far from finding Him if we care to look [Acts 17:26-27]. Think about that for a moment: God created this Universe billions of years ago, and this Earth when the Universe was already ancient, and coordinated all the environments and all the organisms along the way so that you and I would be in the right place at the right time to find Him. How’s that for amazing?
(Note that if your assertion is that creation is the greatest supernatural event of all, I would ask you to back up that assertion. There is no doubt in my mind, however, that it is a stunning display of how far beyond us God really is.)
Ted: And most (if not all) evolutionists are complete and militant atheists.
Spoken like someone who’s never actually looked at the facts.
Most atheists — even the militant ones — accept evolution, yes. But it does not follow from that that most who accept evolution are militant atheists. In fact, the number of Christians who accept evolution far outnumber the total number of atheists, in this country and abroad.
The validity of a scientific theory is not contingent on who accepts it or doesn’t, however.
Ted: Are atheistic evolutionists accountable for knowing that there is a God from His creation? If so, then how??? The Bible says… “all men without excuse about knowing God’s existence, His power and His eternal nature…from the things that have been made (Rom. 1:18-23)”?
I believe that it’s because certain aspects of nature point to the importance of God. Whereas science attempts to address the “how” questions concerning the workings of nature, I believe that God lies beneath some of the “why” questions. Why is altruism so important to a species like man? Why is the Universe created in such a way that suffering is inevitable? Why does life seem to depend on death for its survival? And so on.
Counterquestion: Faith is necessary to come to God [Hebrews 6:11]. But if there is solid evidence in the Universe that God created it, even in principle, “believing that [God] is” is not a matter of faith — it’s a matter of scholarship. Learn enough, or learn the right facts, and you’ll just have to understand that there’s a God. So why, then, would we presume to think that God’s presence is the inevitable conclusion one must have if one is doing “real science” (that is, if one is attempting to really discover the operating principles of the Universe)? Are we attempting to assert that faith is not necessary to come to God?
Proof is for doubters.
Ted: What’s left for God to do?
You haven’t been paying attention. Everything! I don’t believe that God is absent from the actions that we associate with natural law.
Ted: Sound’s a lot like Deism. Explain how God using of evolutionary processes to create life is not like deism?
Deism is the belief in the existence of a God Who is now indifferent to the world He made. I believe in exactly the opposite.
In fact, the believer in the “God of the gaps” is closer to deism than I, since such a believer assumes that God only actively operates in things we don’t understand and can’t explain.
Deists also generally deny the existence of supernatural revelation. I believe the Bible is God’s supernatural revelation; I also believe that God has acted supernaturally in the Universe. This is different from asserting that Creation must have been one of those times. (If God had created things supernaturally, I believe the evidence would reveal that, or at least be consistent with it. It does not, and it is not.)
Kash: “How can you claim that Bible believers have never killed anyone in the name of their very belief in the Bible?” I was not talking of the foot soldiers in the Crusades or those fighting against foreign invaders. I have friends that fought in Vietnam. There were atrocities committed by some of our troops on the orders from top military brass, Mai lai being the most well known. Now who was responsible for that massacre? The soldiers that engaged or the military brass that set them up. If it was the soldiers then we must assume that these men are barbaric killers with no conscience what-so-ever. I also have friends that fought in that senseless war that behaved gallantly and courageously. One of my best friends from that era actually risked his life to save a young girl.
My point is that Bible believing Christians are as suseptible to evil men’s leadership as anyone else. Hitler led Germany in a program to exterminate all those he believed inferior. Are we to believe that the German nation is made up of genocidal maniacs, or were they brainwash and bullied by a leader who was himself the very essence of evil. American history is full of such events that one would classify as evil. For example, slavery, our treatment of the Indian Nations, and our treatment of many minorities. At the root of the problem is the leadership of any nation. True Christian leaders rise up in these circumstances to bring the nation back to Christian principles.
Our discussion of the Fed is a classic example. You and all those that support the current system have been deceived into believing that the Fed and expanding government is beneficial for the nation as a whole. You refuse to see the evil in fiat currency or oppression created by ever expanding state control. In doing so you refute God’s word, and support the very evil that you should be condemning, yet I consider you a devout Christian. Your problem is that you have been blinded by the propaganda provided by those who would distort God’s word to make their point. It is exactly what Hitler did in his rise to power.
Remember Bill Clinton and Monica? Recall how Clinton used the example of David’s sin with Bathsheba and how God forgave David? Recall how he had minister meet with him in the White House as he lied under oath? Clinton used religion as a propaganda tool to protect his own self-interest. His example of David was laughable to anyone that knew that entire story. Yet I know of some Christians that to this day defend Billy C.
My reference to Bible Believing Christians that lead torture and slaughter is that they are not true believers. They can’t be as “by their fruit you will know them.”
Mike: Like I said, I do not know why God gave me this burning desire for not only His word but for economics and markets.
It may be that there’s a perfectly valid and important reason for it. What’s curious is that you trumpet this information you feel a burning desire to share and denigrate other information as irrelevant. Isn’t it possible that God has asked other people to share out of their passions and understanding? That God has more than one important message to give to people? That God can reach different people hurting in different ways with different messages?
Mike: MattF, in reference to your passages regarding scripture’s description of a geocentric theory, which was proposed by Ptolemy who was not exactly a Christian, how would explain what we mean today when we say:
1. The sun rose in the east and set in the west. 2. The Big dipper revolves around the North Star. 3. The sun blazed across the sky as pilgrims died of thirst. 4. The attacks of 9-11 were earth shattering. 5. Larry Csonka was a bull running through the wall set up by the defense.
I mention this because the Bible is full of passages that use language that if taken in a wooden literal sense are totally false, just as 5 examples I gave cannot be understood without realizing that the language is figurative.
Yes. I understand and completely agree. This was, in fact, the point I was trying to make.
Mike: Scripture is not mistaken, it is the hermaneutics of the reader that is failing.
Yes. Absolutely. That is exactly what I’ve been trying to say all along. We must always be willing to re-examine the assumptions we make in forming the interpretation of Scripture that we do. A failed interpretation is not the same as failed Scripture; if we have a failed interpretation, it means that we were using the wrong interpretation.
FYI, for anyone interested. Gold hit a peak of $1069 and is now trading at $1063. Silver is at $17.91 and oil is $73.87. All are up. Why? The US dollar is back under 76, trading at 75.91.
This is just one of numerous stories circulating that tell me the dollar is headed lower…..MUCH MUCH LOWER.
(Mike’s comment:
Now here is an absolute indication that China and Russia will NOT be using dollars in energy settlements between countries.
This is the real beginning of the rumored trend in hard FACT. It will definitely spread now.”
Copied from the story:
“The countries hope to expand the amount of business they do in their own currencies, rather than the US dollar. However, currently only about 1% of their dealings involve roubles or yuan.”
Russia and China eye $5.5bn deals
Russia is hoping to sign deals worth $5.5bn (£3.5bn) with China as Prime Minister Vladimir Putin visits Beijing.
The deals may lead to Russia selling more oil and gas to China – the world’s second-biggest energy user.
About 30 contracts in infrastructure, energy, mining, transportation and telecoms have been lined up.
Russia is keen to bolster its economy, which President Dmitry Medvedev has said will decline by 7.5% in 2009 – far worse than earlier predicted.
Currency ambition
Trade between Russia and China has risen from less than $10bn to more than $50bn annually over the past six years.
The heart of the relationship is Beijing’s thirst for Russian energy – oil and gas make up more than half of Russian exports to China.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8302016.stm
In the past few weeks we have heard the UN call for an alternative currency as well as China, Brazil, and several other countries in the G-20. Kash, I once asked you how the US would be able to pay its massive debt. You said we would grow our way out of it. I don’t think there is an economist alive that believes that is possible since our unfunded liabilities and debt now exceed $75 trillion. The answer to my question is quite simple they will have to devalue the USD 67% in order to make the debt manageable. The USD has been declining the past 8 years at a 5% to 7% rate. Another 10 years and presto you have a 2/3 devaluation. Those holding dollars will see their hard earned savings evaporate due to loss of purchasing power. This would be the BEST CASE scenario. If there were to be some unexpected event that is dollar negative, we could see it lose value in a very short period of time. Hyperinflation would then take hold overnight.
All of this is made possible by our loving politicians who just want to help the poor and they are accomodated by a Central Bank that can print money at will. So in helping the poor folks, the government and the Fed will impoverish everyone. What a wonderful system.
MattF: “What’s curious is that you trumpet this information you feel a burning desire to share and denigrate other information as irrelevant.”
Because it is irrelevant. Most of what we get is MOPE, Management of Perspective Economics. In the political world it is called SPIN. Inflation is negative is a lie. Unemployment is at 9.8% is a lie. Tim Geithner and the White House support a strong dollar is not only a lie but is now laughed at openly by none other than Chinese economic students. Deficits don’t matter is Dick Chaney’s favorite lie. The US economy is strong and will recover is a whopper of a lie. The Housing market is bottoming out goes beyond lying as 7 million houses will go into foreclosure in the next two years according to Case Shiller. Oh and may I add that some expect 50% of all mortgages will be underwater by 2012. The recession is ending is not only lie but a misstatement. This has not been a recession but a depression. Washington stimulus will get the economy going goes way beyond lying as what they are doing is making matter worse. The bailouts were necessary to save the economy is just too extreme to believe. It’s like a police officer telling a man bent on suicide to drop his weapon (which the man is holding to his own head) and when the man doesn’t the police officer shoots him dead. This actually happened.
MattF:”Isn’t it possible that God has asked other people to share out of their passions and understanding?” Yep, Goldman Sachs is passionate about the subject. I am quite sure their passion increases with every billion dollars in bonuses they add to their income. Good heavens man, don’t you realize that these maniacs have created $1.25 Quadrillion worth of OTC derivatives, which Warren Buffett calls financial weapons of mass destruction. How on earth do you think they managed to justify their salaries and bonuses. Do you think for one instance these people and the politicians they donate to are going to tell the American People, “Hey guys, bear with us. We are making ourselves fabulously wealthy while putting the entire globe at risk should these OTC derivatives fail. Your political leaders decided it was in their best interest, to allow us to do this because they need our campaign contributions to convince you to re-elect them. Of course when it all hits the fan you the American people will be left holding the bag, which you should be use to since you have been holding it since 1971. In the end your money will become worthless but you will be happy to note that we have enriched ourselves and secured our wealth by buying mansions overseas, investing in natural resources, and getting out of US dollars that we know will be worthless in time. Slavery isn’t so bad. You are guaranteed work, food, a roof over your head, and some medical care.”
It’s their passion all right. They tell us all is well, the economy is recovering and government has all the answers. MattF, you appear to be an intellegent person but….hmmmm…how do I say this…..I do not want to be offensive….I had better keep quiet. Man just look around you. What will it take for you to realize that our government has been hyjacked by powerful money interest. They have done it by controlling the currency. The catastrophe is here; the world is looking for an alternative to the US dollar. Do you not understand the implications of this? Take a minute and look at the currency in your wallet. What on earth gives it value? Why do you think A. Rothchild said, “Allow me to control a nation currency and I don’t care who makes the laws.” I just do not understand how people cannot see this. I especially do not understand Christians that do not accept what God has to say about diverse weights and measures as it pertains to the US dollars. Can people actually be this dense or blinded by the propaganda? The scales will fall from the eyes of Christians as they find themselves and their loved ones enslaved and impoverished by their own government and churches across the nation begin to shut their doors. Maybe that is what it will take to bring us back to God’s word and His perfect plan for us….maybe….I pray.
MattF: “Yes. I understand and completely agree. This was, in fact, the point I was trying to make.”
Miracles do happen, Matt and Mike agree totally on an issue. There is still hope.
Mike, when I say that “you trumpet this information you feel a burning desire to share and denigrate other information as irrelevant”, I don’t mean that you denigrate other points of view about money (though that certainly seems to be the case). I mean that you denigrate all other topics.
You feel the importance of what you have to share. But you can’t seem to see the importance in what other people are sharing, even and especially in topics unrelated to yours — consider, for example, your casual dismissal of science as relevant to the welfare of mankind — and if so, that really isn’t a good thing.
MattF. Thanks for your response. To quote Dinesh D’Souza when he debated Christopher Hitchens, “I feel like a mosquito who’s happened upon a nudist colony – where do even I begin?”
There are a couple of ways that I could respond to your response:
1. I could refute the error-laiden and misguided thinking of all of your points (to which you would probably come back with counter points and on ad infinitum) I simply don’t have the time for it. I have teaching and other administrative responsibilities that I must attend to. I am simply not a blogger and I don’t believe that this issue will be or should be solved in the blogo-shere.
2. I could address the philosophical foundations of your viewpoint – namely your “theological naturalism” The reason why you will always see the evidence they way that you do is because of your commitment to theological naturalism (which comes directly – whether you know it or not – from Immanuel Kant)
You said: “I don’t believe that God is absent from the actions that we associate with natural law.” & “I believe the Bible is God’s supernatural revelation; I also believe that God has acted supernaturally in the Universe. This is different from asserting that Creation must have been one of those times. (If God had created things supernaturally, I believe the evidence would reveal that, or at least be consistent with it. It does not, and it is not.)”
These statements are utterly contradictory. So God acted supernaturally in the universe – but the creation of the universe is NOT one of those times. If I am following your reasoning – here is what you seem to be saying – God acts supernaturally in the operation of the universe (via the natural laws of chance, etc…) but not in the creation of the universe (which was also natural). You said that “the evidence would reveal that God created supernaturally, or be consistent with it, but it does not and it is not.” So pray tell me WHAT does God have to do with His creation at all???
Just like Immanuel Kant – you need God to explain morality and altruism – but these are counter-intuitive for the processes of naturalistic evolution
All of the beauty and order and complexity of the universe and all of its creatures are the result of natural processes that have been in operation for 5-8 billion years. But according to you (MattF) there is really no evidence that God did it at all (supernaturally). But this directly contradicts the clear teachings of Scripture which are unequivocal in their testimony that God is revealed in His creation and that men are accountable for this knowledge (Psalm 19:1-4; 89:11-12; Isa 45:7-9, 11-12; Matt. 13:35; 19:4; 8; 24:21; 25:34, Romans 1:18-23, etc..etc…).
MattF: Counterquestion: Faith is necessary to come to God [Hebrews 6:11]. But if there is solid evidence in the Universe that God created it, even in principle, “believing that [God] is” is not a matter of faith — it’s a matter of scholarship. Learn enough, or learn the right facts, and you’ll just have to understand that there’s a God.
I make a distinction in belief THAT and belief IN
Belief THAT (is objective, reasonable and logical)
This only applies to God’s existence and nature (Romans 1:18-23)
There is enough evidence of God’s existence in the universe that renders all men without excuse for knowing that there is a God (I AM NOT speaking about salvation here, merely Theism)
“..even the demons believe [i.e. know] that there is a God and tremble” – James 2:19
Belief IN (is a subjective personal response to a message or offer)
This applies to the Gospel message of Salvation offered in Christ.
This is where the verse you quote applies – (Heb. 6:11)
MattF. So why, then, would we presume to think that God’s presence is the inevitable conclusion one must have if one is doing “real science” (that is, if one is attempting to really discover the operating principles of the Universe)? Are we attempting to assert that faith is not necessary to come to God?
The reason why I don’t presume this – but KNOW it, is because that is what Scripture SAYS. “SInce the CREATION OF THE WORLD, GOD’S ETERNAL POWER AND GODHEAD ARE REVEALED FROM THE THINGS THAT WERE CREATED..”
If it is true that God’s existence, power and nature are revealed “since the creation of the world” before the advent of modern science, then a fortiori in our age of understanding the world better with scientific methods and tools – people and especially scientists are without excuse for not knowing because they understand creation on a deeper level.
Paul goes on to say that men “suppress the truth in unrighteousness, since what may be known about God (i.e. His existence, nature and power) is plain to them (or manifest) to them.
The problem is that modern scientific theories (evolution included) do not give GOD the glory He deserves.
Since you are a theological naturalist I am sure that you probably also doubt Noah’s flood was real. You don’t give the text the benefit of the doubt and beg the question that all science is completely objective and the correct picture of the world (again see Thomas S. Kuhn’s book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).
How does a theological naturalist deal with the miracles of Jesus? I am assuming that you believe that Jesus can do miracles but that God the Father limits Himself to working through naturalistic causes.
I would like to know how you would convince a fellow (naturalistic) evolutionist of the fact that God created the universe and all life? Is that even a valid question for you?
Would you tell them just to believe (and have faith) since God’s supernatural activity is not really evident? or Would you tell them to look at the evidence? If so, then why would the evidence necessarily lead them to God?
You didn’t read through all of the past shows covering this topic of discussion, did you Ted.
MattF: “But you can’t seem to see the importance in what other people are sharing, even and especially in topics unrelated to yours — consider, for example, your casual dismissal of science as relevant to the welfare of mankind — and if so, that really isn’t a good thing.”
I have discussed many other topics on this forum. Back when Bernie was around I debated him vehemently on why there is more than ample evidence that the Bible is the word of God and Jesus was who He said He was. I kind of miss old Bernie. You can ask mherman my debates with her regarding the Pretribulational Rapture, which many no believe is close at hand since this crisis certainly fits into their worldview.
As for my casual dismissal of science, nothing can be further from the truth. I actually love science and in general love to read scientific articles. I just don’t spend a great deal of time dealing with the evolution debate. I spend most of my spare time researching information regarding the economy and markets as I believe what is happening presents a clear and present danger to the American People. You fail to understand where my heart is. Kash seems to think that all I care about is gold or getting rich. Nothing could be further from the truth. My life style would change little no matter how much wealth I possessed. I am not the type to get all caught up traveling to Europe or other exotic places as I am more comfortable camping in one of my tents. I like to back pack. I would not be eating exotic foods as my all time favorites are cardo gallego ( a Cuban dish made of garbanzo and navy beans), chicken livers, which I prefer over steak or lobster, and pinto beans with corn bread, which I make a pot of every November so I don’t have to eat left over turkey. So you see I am a simple person when it comes to life style. I am not into cars either, as I still own and drive my 1973 super beetle convertible that I bought brand new in 1973. The family car is a 1998 Ford Escort with 195,000 miles. Lest you think I am a tight wad, I do tithe to my church, am involved in faith promise to support missionaries, contribute to our building fund, and have donated a considerable sum over the past few years to provide scholarships for the less fortunate that want to attend our Christian school. I have also spent a small fortune traveling to Cuba and taking necessities to family and friend that are stuck in that State Run Utopian Hell Hole.
My favorite activities involve spending time with my dog, which was a rescue as all our pets have been and many that we found homes for, seeing my now adult children whenever possible, reading on economics and the markets as well as history, which was my major in undergraduate school… participating in my churches nursing home ministry, and going on visitation. On the weekends I am on the look out for the Jehovah Witnesses and have spent considerable time putting together some scripture passages from their book, the NWT as well as the Bible. I also spend a great deal of time reading scripture and studying the Bible. I watch very little TV….make that almost none, except for The Dog Whisper and some stuff on Nat. Geo. Also like Antiques Road Show and History Detectives on PBS. As you can see I stay busy but I am a simple person at heart.
As for my position on economics and government, I have no ax to grind. I am basically a-political as you can see I blame both Republicans and Democrats. The worse President in modern times may very well be George Bush 43 as he campaigned as a conservative but turned out to be the biggest statist the nation has ever seen. I am not particularly fond of LBJ for obvious reasons, and despise what Richard Nixon did in closing the Gold window. I believe FDR did great harm to America as he set us on the path of government as Big Daddy. LBJ’s war on poverty just made matters worse. I do not think Jimmy Carter was as bad as many of the so called conservatives claim, he did after all appoint Paul Volcker as head of the Fed. Paul did the right thing which many hated him for because it triggered a severe recession. I loved Reagan but he was not perfect and failed to separate Soc. Security contributions from the general fund.
My passion is due to my hatred of evil and what is going on in America is pure evil laced with greed on a scale never before seen in human history. The monetary system we adopted in 1913 along with the closing of the gold window in 1971 set the train in motion heading it straight for a cliff, which we have now gone off. The plunge will be hard enough but government now is setting up spikes that will make the landing all that more painful. Those that do not see how this crisis unfolded are either totally blind, completely ignorant of economics (espeically Biblical Economics), or just plain ideologues that have substituted the state for their God. They cannot imagine a US government that would actually harm its own citizens in order to maintain power. Whoever said that American Politicians are any saintlier than those of Nazi Germany, the old Soviet Union, or Pol Pots regime. The Constitution restrains them, but systematically the Constitution has been shredded. While many believe that life in America the past 20 years is better than ever, the truth of the matter is over the last 20 years we have spent the wealth created by our forefathers and have now gone into debt to satisfy our lust for STUFF. This could only have happened with the urging of government whose ally is the Fed. When interest rates are less than 1% there is no incentive to save. Given inflation and taxes you are actually losing money when you put it in the bank. This encourages speculation and the freer the money the more speculation you will get. Witness the recent housing bubble. A fiat monetary system forces speculation as inflation has to be taken into consideration. Under a sound monetary system people can save their earnings, and through the miracle of compound interest, save enough to get them through 1000 years of retirement without a Social Security safety net. Inflation forces people to play on Wall Street and most are totally unaware how the system works, and how it is rigged against them. I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT SO MANY CHRISTIANS SUPPORT THIS SYSTEM. The corruption in the US markets would make a Banana Republic Dictator blush. Just look up Naked Short Selling then tell me why our beloved SEC under Chris Cox removed the Uptick rule which was put in place as a road block to the market manipulators, aks market plungers, of the 1920s. Why are stock certificates so difficult and expensive to get? Why have FTDs, Failure to Deliver, to the DTCC sky rocketed into the billions. Why has no one address the short pools that have set up shop off shore then make a fortune destroying companies with the end result being that not only do they keep the ill gotten money but they are NOT required to pay taxes on it.
This con game while all the while the American People work their tails off, are forced into the con game in their 401ks, then get robbed because we have a government that is in bed with the crooks. Unbelievalbe!! But what is more unbelieveable is the fact that so many Christians SUPPORT THIS CORRUPT SYSTEM. God needs to wipe this nation, that He once blessed, off the face of the earth as He did the old Soviet Union. Break it up so we can start over. Maybe one of the regions made up of a few states will establish a government based on Biblical principles. That would at least give us a choice of who will govern us. So there you have it. Wrapped up and placed under the tree well before Christmas. As I have been saying this is going to be a very cold winter for the US dollar.
MattF:”You feel the importance of what you have to share.”
It is not the importance but the urgency. I feel like a person that knows a plane that is being boarded is about to crash. There was an old 1950s movie, based on a true story, starring Jimmy Stewart playing the role of areonautical engineer, that realizes that stress on the tail of a plane will lead to a crash. He pleads with the powers that be to test his theory on stress points. They do not listen so his only solution is to pull the lever that holds the landing gear. The plane pancakes on the tarmac. The companies test the metal and lo and behold the tail falls off. Stewart, saved the passangers and crew in that movie.
I have been calling for a hyperinflationary depression since 2002. We are now in the depression stage and everything the government is doing will set up the hyperinflation. These might just be words to you and kash but the results on living standards are far from just words. People die of malnutrician, children go hungry, families break up, young women go into the sex trade just to feed their families, and the economy grinds to a halt. Is this what you and Kash want to see in America? It breaks my heart to know that this once great / Godly country has been destroyed by a cancer of our own making. What I don’t understand is why so many people believe we should continue to feed the cancer.
FYI, gold will close at a new high $1064. Silver closing at $17.74 and the USD ending the day at 75.85. Remember neither gold or silver are going up….THE US DOLLAR IS GOING DOWN!!!! Does anyone not understand this?
Ted: I could refute the error-laiden and misguided thinking of all of your points (to which you would probably come back with counter points and on ad infinitum) I simply don’t have the time for it. I have teaching and other administrative responsibilities that I must attend to.
Okay. I shall refrain from sarcastic comment.
Why don’t we keep this discussion about the evidence, then? Observations and discoveries, not rhetoric about them? That should keep the amount and length of posts down.
Ted: I am simply not a blogger and I don’t believe that this issue will be or should be solved in the blogo-shere.
Nor do I. But I haven’t had much luck getting people to read the peer-reviewed literature.
Ted: I could address the philosophical foundations of your viewpoint – namely your “theological naturalism” The reason why you will always see the evidence they way that you do is because of your commitment to theological naturalism (which comes directly – whether you know it or not – from Immanuel Kant)
Um, no. You’re attempting to dismiss me by putting me in a box that doesn’t fit. There are certain evidences we could plainly see if organisms came about through instantaneous creation of many different “kinds”. Absence or contraindication of some or all of the evidences I listed and keep referring back to (and which creationists seem to keep avoiding) would be a place to start.
Consider that the creationist model makes certain statements about the natural world, statements from which useful predictions can be made and tested. If all species alive today came from an ark that landed a few thousand years ago, for example, archaeological, paleontological, and biogeographical evidence would show all organisms radiating from a certain central point, all at the same time, starting a few thousand years ago. The kind of species that left the remains would be independent of the stratum in which the remains were located, since all these species existed at once. Or, if all species were created instantaneously, why do we only see creatures preserved in the fossil record in an order exactly consistent with evolution? (Even the single-celled organisms!) Why do we find transitional forms exactly where evolution predicts they will be?
Why, for that matter, are practical sciences that depend on evolution’s truth to make successful predictions so very successful?
I wanted those evidences. Leaving creationism behind was a difficult and painful process, especially since young-Earth creationist rhetoric ties important ideas like sin and redemption into its interpretation in a way that the text alone does not support. And it would be so easy to falsify evolution — a vestigial character that was not once fully functional in an ancestor, for example, or a character way out of its lineage (like a horn on a primate, or a nipple on a lizard). But I had little choice if I wanted to be honest with the evidence, since the evidence clearly indicates that instantaneous creationism did not occur. Instead, what we find is exactly the sort of evidence that we would expect to find if evolution is responsible for species diversity.
You’re conveniently skipping just how easy evolution would be to falsify, or just how easy it would be to show that the evidence that is at least consistent with creationism. You’re not even addressing the evidence I’ve posted. It’s much easier to dismiss the evidence by pretending that your opponent has some assumption that just won’t let him see your points, isn’t it?
Ted: You said: “I don’t believe that God is absent from the actions that we associate with natural law.” & “I believe the Bible is God’s supernatural revelation; I also believe that God has acted supernaturally in the Universe. This is different from asserting that Creation must have been one of those times. (If God had created things supernaturally, I believe the evidence would reveal that, or at least be consistent with it. It does not, and it is not.)”
These statements are utterly contradictory. So God acted supernaturally in the universe – but the creation of the universe is NOT one of those times. If I am following your reasoning – here is what you seem to be saying – God acts supernaturally in the operation of the universe (via the natural laws of chance, etc…) but not in the creation of the universe (which was also natural).
Let me be clear. I believe that God acts in everything. He may not be acting supernaturally in the creation of the Universe, but He is still acting.
Natural laws are the name we give to regular behavior we see in the Universe around us. I believe God is acting (and has acted) there. This is how the evidence seems to indicate God created the Universe.
God is also capable of — and, I believe, has performed — what we would call “supernatural action”, things that seem to violate the principles we think we understand. Things like making an axe head float, or turning water into wine, but not things like the laws of chance. I believe God is also acting there.
But I also believe that regardless of the way God acts, the evidence left behind will be consistent with His action, if that evidence is available to us. (I base this on the sheer number of times Scripture advises the reader to go check the evidence, which I can expound upon if you like.) After Jesus had turned the water into wine, for example, I believe the ceremonial washing jugs would have clearly had signs (if they could have been tested) of having contained wine, and that whatever was used to fill those jugs would clearly have had signs (if they could have been tested) of having contained water.
Ted: So pray tell me WHAT does God have to do with His creation at all???
He created everything, and by Him all things consist and have their being.
He has everything to do with His creation. Your basic misunderstanding seems to be that you think I believe there are some actions in which God is involved and some actions in which He is not. That is not true. He is the very reason things like cause and effect exist, for example, and continue to exist.
Ted: All of the beauty and order and complexity of the universe and all of its creatures are the result of natural processes that have been in operation for 5-8 billion years.
13.7 billion, plus or minus 120 million.
And Who is responsible for the “natural processes” again?
Ted: But according to you (MattF) there is really no evidence that God did it at all (supernaturally).
Right. By that, I mean that there is no evidence that (for example) the diversity of creatures that we witnessed was poofed into existence in an instant — or a week. If they had been, the evidence would be consistent with that. Again, you’re ignoring just how very easy evolution would be to falsify if it were not true. Every gene we sequence, every new species we discover, every new organ we find, has the power to dismantle the ideas of common descent and descent with modification once and for all, ripping up evolution by the roots — which would be a truly thrilling discovery, actually. Instead, all we find are instances that are consistent with those ideas. If God didn’t use evolution, why did He go to such pains to make it look like He did?
Ted: But this directly contradicts the clear teachings of Scripture which are unequivocal in their testimony that God is revealed in His creation and that men are accountable for this knowledge (Psalm 19:1-4; 89:11-12; Isa 45:7-9, 11-12; Matt. 13:35; 19:4; 8; 24:21; 25:34, Romans 1:18-23, etc..etc…).
I don’t discount any of that. I told you why I think man still ought to be able to look at creation and be inspired to come to God. Rather than just saying that I haven’t said anything — which anyone who reads this exchange can clearly see is not true — why don’t you address whether or not the reasons I have given are consistent with the information we have?
Ted: I make a distinction in belief THAT and belief IN
Okay. But isn’t the context talking about belief in? After all, it mentions interacting with God in the way He ought to be interacted with, not merely giving intellectual assent to His existence. The desire to believe in other things came as a result of their bad interaction with God, and God gave them over to it. God’s invisible attributes are listed as part of creation as “what may be known about God” before man refuses to believe in. The refusal to believe in led to a refusal to believe that. You’re putting the cart before the horse, as it were.
Let me take this one step further. If you believe that God created things through means impenetrable to empirical inquiry, how on Earth is man supposed to figure out how it was done? What attributes of God can possibly be seen in a process that must always remain mysterious and impossible to analyze? (Other than the fact that God is mysterious, obviously — but that’s hardly making His invisible attributes plain, there, as the passage posits.)
Ted: So why, then, would we presume to think that God’s presence is the inevitable conclusion one must have if one is doing “real science” (that is, if one is attempting to really discover the operating principles of the Universe)? Are we attempting to assert that faith is not necessary to come to God?
Ted: If it is true that God’s existence, power and nature are revealed “since the creation of the world” before the advent of modern science, then a fortiori in our age of understanding the world better with scientific methods and tools – people and especially scientists are without excuse for not knowing because they understand creation on a deeper level.
I would agree. In fact, I would say that the very reason why they don’t ask the “why” questions is because of the hardness of their hearts that this passage describes.
Ted: The problem is that modern scientific theories (evolution included) do not give GOD the glory He deserves.
I would say that that’s a problem with the person who embraces the theory, not the theory itself; and that Christian laity who see God as not acting in the natural laws of the Universe — only in the mysterious and inexplicable things — are guilty of exactly the same thing.
Giving God glory seems to be difficult for prideful human beings, so much so that we have no real idea how much glory we ought to be giving Him.
I personally find it amazing that of all the ways God could have created — more ways than I could possibly imagine — he chose something with the mystery, scope, drama, and power of evolution. It’s rather astounding when you look at what we have discovered evidence for and imagine what that implies for the size of our God and His relationship to us. God’s majesty, His relationship to life, death, and suffering, and the degree and power of His control over the natural world through the natural world are attributes of God visible in evolution that one could never see in instantaneous creation.
Ted: Since you are a theological naturalist I am sure that you probably also doubt Noah’s flood was real.
I doubt the young-Earth creationist interpretation of it. But I think it was real.
Ted: You don’t give the text the benefit of the doubt and beg the question that all science is completely objective and the correct picture of the world (again see Thomas S. Kuhn’s book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).
Again, you’re not paying attention. I believe the correct picture of the world will be one consistent with observation and discovery. I also believe that science is never exactly right. That’s different from saying that it’s completely objective, and quite the opposite of saying that it’s the correct picture of the world.
This doesn’t mean that observation and discovery cannot tell us what ideas are wrong.
Ted: How does a theological naturalist deal with the miracles of Jesus? I am assuming that you believe that Jesus can do miracles but that God the Father limits Himself to working through naturalistic causes.
Nope.
I believe God can do anything, and that His actions are not required to conform to our expectations or our preferences. In fact, most of the time, they won’t conform to our expectations or preferences, since He’s bigger than we are. But I also believe that when He does act supernaturally, the evidence left behind will be consistent with what He did, and not appear exactly as if He did something very different.
It is not that I believe God couldn’t or wouldn’t create the Universe or the diversification of species as creationists expect. I believe that He didn’t, based on the evidence left behind. Big difference.
Ted: I would like to know how you would convince a fellow (naturalistic) evolutionist of the fact that God created the universe and all life? Is that even a valid question for you?
I believe that one must humble oneself to ask the “why” questions (or others that I didn’t list) about our existence, our relationship to each other, and our relationship to eternity. If a person won’t ask himself those questions, I can’t force him to… any more than I can force you to actually address the sum of empirical observation and not merely rhetoric based on someone’s take on a few cherry-picked empirical observations.
There is more to God’s creation (and the human condition) than the phenomenological data that science addresses. There are ideas in these phenomenological data that might prompt one to ask the deeper questions, but they clearly don’t force one to do so.
Ted: Would you tell them just to believe (and have faith) since God’s supernatural activity is not really evident? or Would you tell them to look at the evidence? If so, then why would the evidence necessarily lead them to God?
As I pointed out, I do not believe that the evidence alone can lead someone to God; God has to act in someone to move their heart in His direction, which (among other things) requires some humility. That said, I’d ask him if he’s ever considered the implications of a nature that is red in tooth and claw. Or if he’s ever seen, among all the natural actions he’s seen, an overwhelming theme of purpose, even if there doesn’t seem to be direct evidence of instantaneous intervention. (Even though individual species don’t scream spontaneous design from scratch, evolution as a process is interesting to discuss.)
Telling him that he’s not seeing what anyone can see directly with their own eyes — e.g., that a change in “kind” just isn’t a real change in kind, despite being a change along almost every possible metric or category it’s possible to devise — is not the way to convince someone that you have the truth. (Regrettably, I speak from experience — before understanding the evidence behind the matter, I was quite the avid young-Earth creationist.)
Ted, more about post 75,
If you think that you can refute MattF.’s “error-laden and misguided posts” with real science[hopefully], but yet claim to not have the time and imply that this would be and endless endeavor anyway because he’d just keep coming back with counter points[And WHY is this a bad thing if you think you can prove him and others like me wrong and you right with scientific evidences? Wouldn't this only be a problem if you couldn't?], then what exactly did you hope to accomplish by coming here to debate with us on science and nature in the first place? Sounds almost like your trying to dodge the issue.
And, an I mistaken, or are you now trying to support your anti-evolutionary views with an appeal to Theology? Like with your mention of the Biblical Flood Myth. Is that your idea of being scientific? What would you do debating a Theist who was not a Christian on this topic[such as myself for example who is polytheistic]? I have no idea where you came to the conclusion that the majority of evolutionists are Atheists, or Militant Atheists. Of all the evolutionists I’ve known in my life I had to come HERE before I actually met and debated with anyone that might fit this description, and they were few and far in between. I’m also interested in reading your answers to the questions MattF. asked you within post 68. I can’t believe that you brought up the Cambrian Explosion to support your case. Are you a Young Earth Creationists by chance?
Ted, about post 10,
“I am not currently doing any research on anthropology…”
If your not currently doing research in anthropology then how is it you were able to provide “breaking news about “Ardi”…” for the radio show? Is this discovery not as new as we commoners have been lead to believe, do you have good connections with the people who are working with this discovery, or was this hype by the radio show to help draw in more people?
And no disrespect intended, but I’m not really that impressed by your B.A. and M.A.. For example, I have noticed that many of the people who work with the Institute For Creation Research have impressive titles attached to their names, yet they don’t know very much about real science, history, and what evolutionist think and teach, but instead prefer to believe custom-made pseudo-sciences, alternate history, and unproven conspiracies revolving around their personal theological beliefs, instead of trying to truly understand what WAS and what IS.
As I mentioned before, I am a Theist, of a rare sort. I am the websites local Pagan. I can give you more information on this if you wish, although I don’t see why this should have mattered in a debate involving Natural Science/Evolution, as science, like mathematics or horticulture, should not revolve around personal theology, or a lack of.
I have no special schooling in science, but I read A LOT, live with and study the natural world, and seem to be able to hold my own rather well when debating about this topic. This is either because I am rather smart or…more likely the case, because almost everyone is just really stupid or ignorant on such topics[siiiiigh, rolls eyes]. You can debate with me and make up your own mind.
Ted post 21,
“But God’s using macro-evolution or speciations(via Darwinian mutation and natural selection) is something I am not willing to concede theologically OR scientifically.”
Uh uh Ted.
As a scientist, do you not see something odd and unscientific about this statement? What was all that talk above it about “to be truly “scientific’ is NOT to be dogmatic”, then? Is this why the word scientific was in quotation marks[smile]?
You may want to prepare yourself for disappointment, JD42 if you have not already.
Ted: How does a theological naturalist deal with the miracles of Jesus? I am assuming that you believe that Jesus can do miracles but that God the Father limits Himself to working through naturalistic causes.
Side point: Even if I did believe this — which I don’t — what difference would it make to what we’re talking about with respect to creation? Jesus created everything [John 1:3]; even if He’s the only one Who does miracles, He’s not forced to do miracles, and He certainly didn’t do the sorts of miracles creationists claim that He did when He made everything.
MattF and Kash, here is what the State has brought us. This is the government you support. How can homelessness be on the rise with such compassionate leaders that we have always had? How is it possible? Remember this well, in a hyperinflationary depression, children go hungry, young women turn to the sex trade to feed their families, marriages break up, and the elderly often starve, freeze, or die from lack of medicine. All brought to us through the benevolence of BIG government. I am sure you will delight in the fact that now we can preach Jesus to easy their suffering. Suffering made possible by a gang of banksters that managed to gain control of the government in order to enrich themselves beyond what any human being could spend in 100 life times. Pat yourself on the back for a job well done in supporting this corrupt system. I am sure Jesus will say to you well done my good and faithful servant.
If I sound angry it is because I am. I feel the outrage Jesus must have felt when he drove the money changers from the temple. Why do you support the system that enriches the money changers? Please, I beg you, look around and understand what is going on. Christians need to carry the banner in this revolution or the US will be lost for generations. We must return to a sound currency and drastically shrink the size and scope of government. This is what our forefathers fought for…this is what so many gave their last full measure of devotion. Let us not throw it away.
Group: Record Numbers Of Homeless In NYC
According To Coalition For The Homeless, More Than 16,000 Children Were In Shelters By End Of September
The economy may be poised for a rebound but for a lot of people times are very tough.
According to a new report, the number of homeless people sleeping in New York City shelters has reached an all time high at 39,000 — many of them are children.
Using New York City’s own data, a homeless group claims a record number of people are in city shelters, particularly children, despite years of programs that were supposed to bring homeless numbers down. But perhaps the best way to understand this is to listen to a woman trying to hold her family together.
Most of us walk through the streets of the city thinking about our own problems. Hopefully, that does not include where we’re going to sleep tonight. But for more and more New Yorkers, that’s not the case, especially for children.
Mary Brosnahan, longtime executive director of the Coalition for the Homeless used the city’s own data, and says homelessness has been increasing each of the last five years, and currently is at an all-time high. At the end of September, 10,494 homeless families lived in shelters, including 16,615 homeless children.
“What does that mean for those children, and their future? That they will spend a substantial amount of their childhood … in a homeless shelter?” asked Bill de Blasio, the chairman of the City Council General Welfare Committee.
Here’s what it means from a woman living it right now.
“I wake up, travel two hours to get them to the same school ’cause I wanted them to have that sense of normalcy. And I just … always promised myself that I would never put them through this again,” Bernadette Miles said.
But they are going through “it” — homelessness — again. In 2006, Miles, newly divorced, and her three children — the kind of people you walk past every day — were evicted when she lost her job. But she got another job and takes home $1,800 a month. But her rent is $1,500. With food, and other bills, they’re about to be evicted again.
“This is the most embarrassing thing to have to go through,” Miles said. “It was almost hard for me to look at my children’s faces, when the marshals came and put us out of our house. And I promised that I would never put them through this again, which is why I worked so hard to get a job, which is why I worked so hard to find a place, only to find out that I’m in the same position I was in three years ago.”
Miles said she was advised by some agencies to quit her job and go on welfare. She said she does not want to set that example for the children.
http://wcbstv.com/local/nyc.homeless.homeless.2.1245853.html
MIke, I am outraged by the greed inherent in the system. I am outraged by the indifference of our supposed “Christian nation” to the poor, hungry, oppressed in our own countries and all countries. I simply disagree with you about how to fight it. I think the ridiculous wealth generated by a few on Wall Street is morally questionable, as I think all excessive wealth is morally quesitonable (see the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, Luke 16:19-31). I think Geithner is ethically compromised by his connections to the very companies that the TARP funds bailed out, and ought to be replaced…maybe by Elizabeth Warren, who I think talks sense but no one will listen to her because she is an academic who hasn’t made billions and donated millions to politicians. I think the Fed needs to be democratized, and the New York fed shouldn’t have more power than the Cleveland Fed or the Kansas City Fed. I think a lot more things about what is wrong with the revolving door between Wall Street and Capital Hill, I just don’t agree that the only way to fix the problem is go back on the gold standard and abolish the Federal Reserve system entirely. Now, if you are going to respond to this post and scold me about my stupidity, naivity, or whatever please do so on maybe the thread about “Do you trust your government” so that the people who want to actually discuss something other than monetary policy can do so without being subjected to long posts completely off topic.
Back on topic: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jiVuN2BMp6tmuGBGOedALIY4_FaA
Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum
By Britt Kennerly (AFP) – Jun 30, 2009
PETERSBURG, Kentucky (AFP) — For a group of paleontologists, a tour of the Creation Museum seemed like a great tongue-in-cheek way to cap off a serious conference.
But while there were a few laughs and some clowning for the camera, most left more offended than amused by the frightening way in which evolution — and their life’s work — was attacked.
“It’s sort of a monument to scientific illiteracy, isn’t it?” said Jerry Lipps, professor of geology, paleontology and evolution at University of California, Berkeley.
“Like Sunday school with statues… this is a special brand of religion here. I don’t think even most mainstream Christians would believe in this interpretation of Earth’s history.”
The 27 million dollar, 70,000-square-foot (6,500-square-metre) museum which has been dubbed a “creationist Disneyland” has attracted 715,000 visitors since it opened in mid-2007 with a vow to “bring the pages of the Bible to life.”
Its presents a literal interpretation of the Bible and argues that believing otherwise leads to moral relativism and the destruction of social values.
Creationism is a theory not supported by most mainstream Christian churches.
Lisa Park of the University of Akron cried at one point as she walked a hallway full of flashing images of war, famine and natural disasters which the museum blames on belief in evolution.
“I think it’s very bad science and even worse theology — and the theology is far more offensive to me,” said Park, a professor of paleontology who is an elder in the Presbyterian Church.
“I think there’s a lot of focus on fear, and I don’t think that’s a very Christian message… I find it a malicious manipulation of the public.”
Phil Jardine posed for a picture below a towering, toothy dinosaur display.
The museum argues that the fossil record has been misinterpreted and that Tyrannosaurus rex was a vegetarian before Adam and Eve bit into that sin-inducing apple.
Jardine, a palaeobiologist graduate student from the University of Birmingham, was having fun on the tour, but told a reporter that he was disturbed by the museum’s cartoonish portrayal of scientists and teachers.
“I feel very sorry for teachers when the children who come here start guessing if what they’re being taught is wrong,” Jardine said.
Arnie Miller, a palentologist at the University of Cincinnati who was chairman of the convention, said he hoped the tour would introduce the scientists to “the lay of the land” and show them firsthand what’s being put forth in a place that has elicited vehement criticism from the scientific community.
“I think in some cases, people were surprised by the physical quality of the exhibits, but needless to say, they were unhappy with things that are inaccurately portrayed,” he said.
“And there was a feeling of unhappiness, too, about the extent to which mainstream scientists and evolutionists are demonized — that if you don’t accept the Answers in Genesis vision of the history of Earth and life, you’re contributing to the ills of society and of the church.”
Daryl Domning, professor of anatomy at Howard University, held his chin and shook his head at several points during the tour.
“This bothers me as a scientist and as a Christian, because it’s just as much a distortion and misrepresentation of Christianity as it is of science,” he said.
“It’s not your old-time religion by any means.”
Mike: Miracles do happen, Matt and Mike agree totally on an issue.
Don’t act so surprised, Mike. I mentioned in threads where the subject of economics is more relevant that it is not my strong suit, and that it was simply that I had facts that seemed to contradict what you had to say; I specifically asked you to provide real-world data to help me re-understand the facts in light of your assertions. After a lot of beating around the bush and throwing rhetoric instead of real-world data at me, you finally had some relevant facts about the historical trends I was questioning to bring to the table.
Since then, as I’ve been telling you, I’ve been trying to make sense of the different voices on this subject by trying to analyze the bases of the arguments — a time-consuming process. You seem to have this weird notion that this caution constitutes adamant disagreement, especially as evidenced by your surprise when we agree on a topic; and in the meantime, you’ve shown me more people who agree with what you have to say and have trumpeted financial headlines, which is fine for increasing the breadth of an argument, but does little to confirm its basis.
I know you feel the urgency of telling people what you do. I also feel the importance of knowing what the facts are before determining whether an argument makes sense — what it bases its premises on, and how it got from its premises to its conclusions. I do not disagree with you; I am withholding judgment as I study to understand the facts, and I think it’s important (if you’re trying to convince logical people of your stance) that you understand the difference, and determine what information at the basis of your arguments will help people who try to think critically bridge the gap you want them to.
In the meantime, do not mistake this caution for disagreement, or for not caring about monetary abuses in the system, or for trust in the government to completely solve all manner of economic ills.
On to more relevant topics.
Let me try to break down something for the less technically inclined. Ted’s quote from Rana’s book is basically a technical-sounding “Similar design for similar functionality indicates a Designer” argument. I’ve already pointed out that this is not the case, and that this argument does nothing to address the fact that similar functionality often has very different design in different lineages. Without a reason why similar design indicates specified design (or, as some assert, is exclusive to specified design), this seems like cherry-picking the facts that agree with your idea in order to lend your idea more support (especially since evolution explicitly expects the same thing).
Evolution, on the other hand, predicts that some designs will be similar, and some will be different — and, most importantly, tells you when to expect which. If you can demonstrate — not just argue, but demonstrate — that reality is inconsistent with these predictions, you will change our understanding of evolution. The nature of the change depends on the nature of the data; whether it would require a mild re-write of our understanding of heredity, or a complete undermining of everything associated with common descent with modification (destroying evolution completely), would have to be linked to what the data you present is. But it’s no secret what kind of data would do this; why not go for the gold? (A piece of data that I sometimes point to that would uspet our notions of common descent would be a nipple on a lizard. Sure, it seems ridiculous to think that there would ever be such a thing, but we must ask ourselves why it seems ridiculous. It’s not beyond the power of an infinite God to create lizards with nipples. So why didn’t He? He’s not restricted to just my unimaginative example of putting nipples on lizards, of course; why did He not use countless examples of other characters from other lineages to not make it look exactly like different species arrived through common descent with modification?)
On the other hand, if this proves too difficult, can you at least demonstrate that creationism, too, gives us indications of when to expect similarities and when to expect differences — indications that are different from notions like common descent, but which are nevertheless consistent with reality? No creationist I’ve ever asked has offered even a proposed model (that, though perhaps sketchy and imperfect, could undergo tweaking as new information came to light), and I’ve never seen one in the creationist literature.
To sum up, it’s not an argument that creationists haven’t used before; it’s not even an argument that creationists haven’t used before on this site. They still have no data to show that things are different from what evolution predicts, however, or even to show that they have a unified, predictive theory that is also consistent with the facts at our disposal — so as far as science is concerned, the argument is content-free.
Ted’s exasperated “Why can’t you just take the passage at face value?” questions are a textbook example of the final straw in my decision to change my mind about creationism: When confronted with facts that seem to indicate that we should look at our interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 more carefully, their response is not to show how their interpretation understands these facts, but to encourage me to just have more faith in their interpretation and join them in ignoring the facts — all the while maintaining the dogmatic assertion that their interpretation is consistent with scientific fact.
In other words, I think I’ve made it clear why I can’t just take the passage the way they want me to take it. It seems pretty plain to me that the way they want me to take the passage stands in opposition to the facts. Their response has never been to demonstrate to me what I am misunderstanding about the facts in front of me, or even show how the facts in front of me could be understood in a different light, but to tell me that I just need to believe what they’re telling me.
It might even be a different matter if they could humbly admit a lack of knowledge on the matter. It could conceivably be the case that creationism has a coherent theory to offer after all, even if it may not be able to address a particular topic at the moment; that, at a minimum, would suggest an openness to inquiry, and might even imply ways to go about inquiring. But their constant trumpeting that they have all the answers while tacitly encouraging their adherents to ignore uncomfortable facts is rather underhanded, and helped to turn a frantic attempt to try to believe in the face of seemingly contradictory evidence into disgust. (It’s easy to see why, of course. One of the creationist attempts to show that evolution is weak is to assert that it doesn’t have answers to this question or that. If that is, in fact, a real weakness in a theory, then any strong explanation of the facts must be able to answer all questions. If someone has a question you can’t answer, then, it’s better to change the subject on him or her than admit that you don’t know. Of course, all this ignores the fact that every scientific theory has questions that it cannot answer.)
It’s a common bit of rhetoric among the creationists and Intelligent Design crowd that we’re looking at the same data and coming to different, entirely reasonable conclusions based on different starting premises. I have yet to see evidence that the creationists and Intelligent Designers are doing the “looking at the same data” part; it seems like they’re looking at some parts and willfully ignoring others.
Some more about No Free Lunch while I’m ranting:
The basic thrust of Dembski’s book is, as usual, a technical-sounding “God of the gaps” argument, also called “argument from ignorance”. Basically, if we can show that an event or object has a low probability of occurring under various scenarios, then we can infer “specified complexity” (a fancy way of saying “design”). Although the terminology may be different, the thrust of this argument is not new, and has been addressed on this site many times.
The only thing he applies this argument to is the E. coli flagellum, making the same assertions Behe does and the same mistakes Behe does in asserting that it cannot be the product of Darwinian evolution: He fails to allow for changes in the function of a biological system while it evolves.
He then derives a probability, but his probability is based on the assumption that the flagellum arose suddenly and fully-formed as a completely randomized collection of proteins. The math is pretty, but ultimately irrelevant, especially since no theory of evolution posits that complex biological systems like the flagellum arose this way; he’s debating an imaginary opponent, and then pretending that he has defeated an argument by dismantling assertions that no one is making. (Bob Griffin has dutifully followed in his footsteps on this site, and made the same errors in logic; you might see reference to “billions of base pairs” lying around. It’s also an even more basic fallacy to assume that something did not happen on the sole datum that the odds against it are immense.)
A sort of add-on argument that Dembski makes is that even if complex biological systems can evolve, they could only do so if the “fitness function” was chosen by a Designer, or if the Designer had inserted “complex specified information” before the process got underway.
To bolster this, he appeals to No Free Lunch theorems. As I pointed out earlier, though, these theorems do not apply to biological evolution at all; he’s using the wrong math for the problem, and he has even admitted as much. That said, the only thing left to Dembski’s claim is that life could only evolve if life and Earth were set up to be “just right” to allow that to happen. This argument, too, is nothing new, and is a technical-sounding “fine-tuning” argument, which has been addressed several times on this site as well.
Far from using information theory to support his stance, “complex specified information” is Dembski’s own invention which he claims is valid information theory; as it is, it’s quite different from any form of information that information theorists use and discuss. On the basis of his new and flawed “complex specified information”, he proposes the “Law of Conservation of Information”, which — constructed as it is on his own new ideas with no basis in reality — cannot correspond to facts.
As a side note, Dembski claims that he’s made major contributions to thermodynamics, statistics, and information theory; in the real world, none of his work has been published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, and no expert in these fields has cited his work. Dembski has done his level best to avoid the entire process of review by experts in the fields he has claimed to contribute to, and even avoids presenting his work to others in these fields at academic conferences, preferring to pitch his ideas to the public. Those who agree with him at the Discovery Institute hail him as “the Isaac Newton of information theory”; if he really is that amazing and revolutionary, why has his work (or work based on his) not appeared in any relevant journal? Why is it not used by any professional information theorist or statistician?
Pointing away from his expertise in these fields (and casting doubt on whether or not he has made “major contributions” to them) is the fact that he seems to use “information”, “complexity”, and “improbability” as interchangeable terms.
Thank God for MattF’s intellect and calm, reasoned responses.
MattF: “After a lot of beating around the bush and throwing rhetoric instead of real-world data at me”
Hold on there. I haven’t given you data? I provided tons of data including charts on gold and the US dollar. I’ve also given you excellent references, like Comptroller David Walker (Chief US accountant until he resigned), that backed up much of what I was saying. When it came to Biblical economics, the best man on this issue was Pastor Doug Tjaden. His whole website is dedicated to the issue of gold as money vs. fiat money. In his short video, comprised of 16 six minute sessions, he provides the listener with the history of money, and what the Bible has to say about our monetary system.
MattF: “Since then, as I’ve been telling you, I’ve been trying to make sense of the different voices on this subject by trying to analyze the bases of the arguments — a time-consuming process.”
You have a choice. You can listen the people that got it all wrong or you can listen to the people that saw this crisis building years before it happened. You can listen to those, like Ben Bernanke and George Bush and Alan Greenspan, and nearly the entire financial media in 2006 and 2007 that all was well and the economy was strong. Or you can listen to Peter Schiff, Dr. Marc Faber, Nouriel Roubini, Gerald Celente, etc. who warned us as far back as 1999 that we were in a bubble economy. I’ve made predictions, long before they occurred, some of which were the most difficult, like short term market moves (Prediction in April – May that gold would bottom in June then move up through August and really get going thru the early winter months) and have kept you abreast of the US dollar on the USDX. I said in August that by Thanksgiving the US dollar would begin to break support and the calls for an alternative to the greenback would be louder and more frequent. I, an average person with little formal education on markets, economics, or currencies have made more accurate predictions that 85% of the people on Financial TV or in the financial press!! Seems like I would have a bit of credibility. BTW, I also called this current stock market rally at the very bottom of the crash when most analysts were fearful that the DOW was headed for 5000. Just to let you know one of my best indicators is market sentiment. When the vast majority of market analysts are bearish and screaming the sky is falling, it is time to buy; when they are euphoric and predicting another 20% rise in the DOW, I am bearish. Do you know why I was so sure that this time gold would break through $1000 and go on to new highs? Because only 29% of the gold analysts were bullish on gold. Most expected a sharp decline in the metal. It is the same reason that the first time gold broke through $1000 that I knew it was in for a hard correction (gold dropped from $1000 to $689 in a matter of a few months) because 78% of the gold analysts were bullish on gold. Do you know why I know that gold has a long way to go in this the Father of all Bull Markets in commodities? Because so few analysts are bullish on gold. The day Dave Ramsey suggest people buy gold will likely be the day to sell it.
MattF: “I know you feel the urgency of telling people what you do. I also feel the importance of knowing what the facts are before determining whether an argument makes sense — what it bases its premises on, ”
You are so wrong….SO SO WRONG. I don’t tell people what to do, I’m merely warning them of what is coming. If you saw someone asleep on the railroad tracks and a train was coming, would you not feel the urgency in warning them. My guess is your response would be something like this, “Hey, get off the tracks a train is coming!!!” Once they understood the situation, it would be up to them to act. Back in 2002, when I first started warning of the coming crisis, I merely mentioned it then let it go. As time went on and I saw all the pieces of the dollar devaluation puzzle falling into place, I became a little more vocal in presenting the case. Between 2007 and today, my voice has become louder and more persuasive. Some people have seen the train coming and have gotten off the tracks, but more than a few are still standing there just waiting to be squashed. I understand the psychological process that involves paradigm resistence and a new paradigm is indeed emerging. People do not want to see or know what is coming because it is too frightening. People are more comfortable with what they are familiar with so they resist change. It is a natural human response. However at certain times such a response can be fatal. By the time people accept the change that is taking place, it is often to late to do anything about it. A person will suffer through whatever situation they managed to get caught in. The depreciation of a currency is a horrific event for people living in the society. The economy sinks, prices soar, and people suffer. That is a fact.
You say you want evidence. What more evidence do you need other than the history of fiat currencies or the impact of monetary systems when the money is debased. Classic example; Rome. If in the past 4000 years no fiat currency has ever survived…all have ended in poverty for the masses, civil unrest, and political upheavals, what on earth makes you think that this time will be different? When deficit spending by the US government is now measured, not in billions, BUT TRILLIONS of dollar; what outcome do you expect? These statistics come from the government itself and we all know the government is notorious for underestimating expenses!!! Do you not read the newspapers? We bailed out AIG to the tune of 10s of billions of dollars and today we here that the executives of that company are getting millions in bonuses each. Goldman Sachs, one of the architects of OTC derivatives which brought on this crisis is paying its gang billions in bonuses. For what? Helping to destroy the US economy and putting 15 million people out of work!! I think I could give a Fifth Graders this information and in a matter of a few minutes he would figure it all out. What’s that popular game show, “Are you smarter than a 5th Grader?” I saw it once or twice when it first came on, I like shows that test knowledge…love Trivial Persuit. I don’t think anyone at the time ever made it much past the $200k level. Maybe that’s the problem…most Americans education gets them to the fourth grade level and that’s it. This stuff is really quite simple. The total debt and unfunded liabilities of the US now stand at a whopping $75 Trillion (lowest estimate, some go as high as $115 Trillion). Even if interest rates remain low, interest on the debt will equal over 60% of tax revenues leaving very little to fund other programs. If the you could count out money at the speed of light, $186,000 per second, it would take you over 15 years to count out enough to pay off the debt. 15 light years worth of debt. The numbers are so large the mind cannot grasp them. Is there anything else you need to know other than this one little fact? 15 light years worth of debt….how did we do this to ourselves? Simple, the politicians promised all sorts of goodies and safety nets, and forgot to tell us that they would pay for it on a credit card. In the process they guaranteed themselves re-election, provided all sorts of financial benefits to the corporations that supported them, with the end game being the destruction of the American Economy. The bill has now come due and we can’t pay it, so they will print the money. It is really that simple.
Kash: “Thank God for MattF’s intellect and calm, reasoned responses.”
I don’t know if you are speaking of Matt’s well reasoned statements regarding evolution or if you are speaking to his intellectual accumen regarding the issue of money and economics. That said, in the former, I agree. In the latter’s case, there is a time for intellect and there is a time for action. When a train is coming at you full speed and your car is stalled out on the tracks, it is not time to discuss whether you should jump out and run or try to get the car started. What is taking place in America does not require a great deal of intellect, all it requires is common sense.
Kash: “I think the Fed needs to be democratized, and the New York fed shouldn’t have more power than the Cleveland Fed or the Kansas City Fed.”
The Fed has not even been fully audited. There is a bill before Congress HR 1207 to audit the Fed. Why can’t it get passed. For heaven sakes, we audit Krispy Kreme every year and all they do is make donuts. We don’t need a democratic Fed, we need a transparent one. However, be careful what you wish for. A transparent Fed will reveal the stench in the system. Henry Ford once said that if the American people knew how the Banking system worked, there would be a revolution by the next day. I think Henry understood the problem.
Mike: Lots Of Disjointed Facts
Once again, you conflate giving lots of facts with providing a basis for understanding. Even if one accepts your facts — and I don’t have any reason not to — you have not established that you have causation, not merely correlation.
As in scientific debate, I do not accept that quoting people who agree with you, by itself, counts as evidence — no matter what their qualifications might happen to be. Nor do appeals to their past predictive successes. Neither of those, without a basis for the claims you’re making, indicate that you or they are right this time.
Mike: You have a choice. You can listen the people that got it all wrong or you can listen to the people that saw this crisis building years before it happened.
As with most complicated issues, the possible choices are not nearly that limited or that polar.
Mike: If you saw someone asleep on the railroad tracks and a train was coming, would you not feel the urgency in warning them.
Yes, of course. But it is also the case that, if I found myself in a place where quick, unthinking action could potentially cause harm to myself or others — such as blindly reacting to someone yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater — I would hope that I would have the presence of mind to assess the evidence before acting. This is true even if the person who yells honestly thinks there is a fire; reacting rather than thinking in certain crucial situations, even ones where action is required, does a lot more harm than good.
I do not have enough information to determine whether your urgency is really the result of causative links or of things that you think are causative. I am not even convinced that you understand why this is important, or why I need to understand the basis of your reasoning before acting, based on the kind of information you have thrown at me when I have asked for a basis.
Now, could we take this discussion to a place where it’s more relevant? I have questions concerning some of the basic assumptions of gold-based currency and of Tjaden’s Biblical interpretation, and this particular thread is not the place to address them.
Kash: ” I think a lot more things about what is wrong with the revolving door between Wall Street and Capital Hill, I just don’t agree that the only way to fix the problem is go back on the gold standard and abolish the Federal Reserve system entirely.”
You don’t cure a cancer by tinkering with the symtoms. The Fed is the cancer and while I agree that we cannot get rid of it overnight, its power must be reigned in. HR 1207 will go along way towards that end. I have never said that the US could return to the old gold standard….maybe in 100 years but not overnight. I have said that the US could back its currency in a Renewed Gold Certificate Ratio, which would put the breaks on the funny money printing. Now repeat after me: “Renewed Gold Certificate Ratio” “Renewed Gold Certificate Ratio” “Renewed Gold Certificate Ratio” I have said this 100 times if I have said it once.
MattF:”As in scientific debate, I do not accept that quoting people who agree with you, by itself, counts as evidence — no matter what their qualifications might happen to be.”
I see the problem. You are dealing with this issue as an intellectual debate, while I am dealing with it as common sense practical. Kash is in the same boat as you. Both believe this is some sort of intellectual exercise when in reality it is merely an exercise in common sense.
Here is a step by step in the process:
1. US debt and unfunded liabilities are unsustainable….BROKE.
2. An economy that is 72% dependent on SPENDING is unsustainable. IN other words when the credit runs out the economy tanks. The credit (houses served as ATM machines in the real estate bubble) is now busted.
3. Government spending is a poor stimulus. It consumes far too much of the available capital and there is too much fraud and waste. It did not work in the Great Depression and it will not work now.
4. Fiat currencies have ALWAYS led to economic disasters; no exceptions the end result after 4000 years is always…ALWAYS THE SAME. Social unrest, poor economic conditions, and widespread poverty are all part of the end game for Fiat Currencies. This is not opinion it is FACT.
5. So far, since the Bush first proposed and passed the income tax rebate stimulus, the economy has done one thing; it has gotten progressively worse.
6. A jobless recovery is at best a contradiction in terms. There can be no recovery without jobs. The US must produce 125,000 new jobs every month just to keep up with the people entering the workforce. Real unemployment is closer to 22% than 10%. U6 government figures stand at 17%.
7. Government programs to stimulate do not work. Today’s retail sales numbers were awful; reason, cash for clunkers forward sold cars and negatively impacted the rest of the retail sector. So whatever jobs were saved in the auto industry we lost in the rest of retail and now that cash for clunkers is over the stimulus will bring the auto industry where it was before cash for clunkers.
I do not want to overwhelm you with this thought process, but the logic and common sense is pretty clear.
I really have nothing further to say. You study on the matter and let me know what you come up with 3 or 4 years from now. Of course by then the facts will be starring you in the face. The America you once knew will no longer exist. We will have become Argentina, Weimar Germany, and God forbid Zimbabwe.
MattF: “I do not have enough information to determine whether your urgency is really the result of causative links or of things that you think are causative. I am not even convinced that you understand why this is important, or why I need to understand ”
How about the fact that the US dollar is currently at 75.55 after hitting a new low of 75.40, a new yearly low and a mere 4 points from an all time low. I predicted that by Thanksgiving the US dollar would be in serious trouble. The break below 76 was critical. One more day of the USD closing below 76 and the breakdown will have been confirmed. Oil in the mean time hit a new yearly high of $75, and so did gold. Oil is getting more expensive in dollar terms but cheaper in gold and silver terms. Nothing intellectual about this…there is nothing but common sense involved. How does one intellectually debate 1+1=2.
Mike: How does one intellectually debate 1+1=2.
Well, of course, one does not debate such things; one proves them or doesn’t. Mathematics enjoys logical proof not possible in empirical studies like economics. But if you really want to know why 1+1=2 because you have some reason to doubt it, check out set theory.
You’re also conflating “common sense” with logic. Empirical studies — again, like economics — use empirical connections to provide a basis for their points, often demonstrating that things are true that would not occur to normal “common sense”, and that other things that appeal to “common sense” are nevertheless false. If you have a sound economic argument, this data demonstrating a causative link should be easy to come by. If “common sense” is all you’ve got, it’s not enough to form an economic conclusion. You claim to like science; you should know that its power lies in demonstrating that intiuition is often wrong, and that there are things that do not appeal to “common sense” that are nevertheless true.
Mike (shortly before post 96, which is still a fact unrelated to demonstrating a causative link): I really have nothing further to say.
Okay… we both know that’s not true. Can we take this someplace more relevant to the topic you’re interested in duscussing?
I just found the neatest thing: Critterding.
It creates an artificial 3D “Petri dish” on your computer. Critters start out with completely random brains and bodies. They are able to determine certain very elementary things related to their immediate survival and ability to procreate. They are also capable of some very elementary, randomized action. Natural selection takes over, and after things run for a long while, creatures with actual useful survival instincts start to develop.
Sure, it’s not a perfect simulation of the real world, but it illustrates very elementary ideas connected with some evolutionary processes. Just about every parameter of the simulation is tweakable. And it’s free.
The documentation is not very exhaustive or very simple, but the good really seems to outweigh the bad.
MattF, here is an example of “empirical connections” The US dollar has lost another 25 basis points since my last message. It is now trading at 75.24. Next stop for the USD is 74. Below that lies the all important 72. I am almost certain now that the USD will break below 72 before the end of the year.
Now for the 1+1; the lower the dollar the more it will cost to this nation to buy oil and everything else we get from overseas. Higher prices for all imports + higher fuel prices = a higher cost of living. A higher cost of living + a falling economy with more jobs lost = A higher misery index, especially for those on fixed income. A slowing economy + higher cost in benefits = lower tax revenues and larger deficits. Larger deficits + an ailing economy = a weaker dollar. A weaker dollar translates into higher costs for all imports. And so the downward spiral goes until it reaches a bottom. The more the government intervenes in the system the lower the bottom. Eventually the US dollar implodes which strangles economic activity and the whole society is impoverished. An impoverished society is an angry society which = rising crime, social unrest, violence, and death for many who are unable to protect themselves.
This is not intellectual balony, and it will become fact in very short order. I give it 3 to 5 years at best.
MattF. post 98,
Thank you[smile]. Most interesting.
Ted, if you are reading, we are respectfully awaiting your answers to our questions. Don’t leave us hanging like the “others” from such shows who try to debate with us tend to.
Here is an article by Gary Demar:
When evolutionists present their latest fossil finds as “evidence” of evolution, keep in mind that they could never find any bit of evidence that would disprove evolution. Their minds are made up before they ever dig up a single fossilized fragment. To be blunt about it, they are looking for evidence to prove what they already believe but can never prove. The facts are interpreted in terms of their necessary materialistic paradigm. This isn’t my opinion; it’s what evolutionists claim for themselves. Richard Lewontin is honest enough to admit that for an evolutionist, “materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
The discovery of facts has little to do with the building of the paradigm since creationists and evolutionists study the same evidence. Evolutionists evaluate the evidence in terms of a pre-conceived worldview based on (the impossibility) of naturalism. There’s nothing new in this. R. J. Rushdoony describes the faith-based character of evolution as it was operating 50 years ago in the work of Louis Leakey:
Louis Leakey, director of Kenya’s Centre for Prehistory and Paleontology in Nairobi, described his discovery, together with his wife Mary, of a bit of skull and two teeth, in these words: “We knelt together to examine the treasure . . . and almost cried with sheer joy. For years people had been telling us that we’d better stop looking, but I felt deep down that it had to be there. You must be patient about these things.” The time was July 17, 1959. This scene is a curious one on two counts. First, the scientist Leakey knew what he had found before he had examined it: he worked by faith, and viewed his findings by faith. He was finding “proof” for a theory already accepted, and he accepted his finding as “proof” on sight. Second, the intense emotionalism and joy sound more like a revival experience than a scientific analysis.
In 1999, an article appeared that unquestioningly assured us that “A Baboon-sized ape that lived in East Africa 15 million years ago might have been among the first primates to leave the treetops and live on the ground, a key step in the evolutionary path that scientists say eventually led to humans.” Fifteen million years ago!? Give me a break. Now we learn that a 4.4 million-year-old fossilized ape is one of our ancestors. An ABC News article was honest enough to write the following:
In the case of “Ardi,” the ape-like fossil recently discovered in Ethiopia and already being celebrated as the oldest found relative of modern human beings, the final determination depends on who is doing the talking.
Exactly! We have film of the JFK assassination, and people still aren’t sure if Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone shooter and that one bullet did all that damage, but these evolutionists are sure that a few fossilized fragments are nearly 5 million years old and are in some way related to humans. They have to be. There is no other option because evolution must be, has to be, true. Non-evolutionists looking at the same bits of fossilized bone and teeth come to a different conclusion because there’s no way that life can spring from non-life. In order to be taken seriously, evolutionists must explain how life started in the first place. They can’t, so like a stage magician they trot out a few bits of bone and teeth to divert our attention from the evolutionist’s real problem of how to explain something out of nothing. The evolutionist will convince an ignorant public by presenting their fragments as an artist-rendered specimen when in reality “that all of these conclusions are inferred from digital reconstructions and fallible reconstructions of bones that were in very bad shape.” In fact, “Ardi is a partial skeleton put together based on the bone fragments of at least 35 sets of skeletons—many of which were in such bad shape that it took 15 years before the research team could fully analyze and publish its findings on the combined skeleton.”
For David Menton, who served as an anatomy professor for 20 years at Washington University School of Medicine , “all the fragments indicate is that Ardi is an ape, plain and simple—and not anywhere nearly as old as scientists would have you believe.”
In reality, evolution is a substitute religion. Time, chance, and necessity make up the evolutionary trinity. Evolutionists tell us that nothing can be understood unless interpreted through the corrective lens of the Darwinian worldview. Darwinism is comprehensive, acting as “a universal solvent” that cuts “right to the heart of everything in sight.” The evolutionists have their popes (Stephen Jay Gould), priests (professors), seminaries (universities), and dogma. For example, Arthur C. Clarke expresses the evolutionary dogma in emphatic terms: “Though I am the last person to advocate laws against blasphemy, surely nothing could be more antireligious than to deny the evidence so clearly written in the rocks for all who have eyes to see!” Daniel C. Dennett, author of Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, proposes that anyone who holds a theistic view of origins should be allowed to live in America but only in “cultural zoos,” otherwise they would be a danger to society:
If you insist on teaching your children falsehoods—that the Earth is flat, that “Man” is not a product of evolution by natural selection—then you must expect, at the very least, that those of us who have freedom of speech will feel free to describe your teachings as the spreading of falsehoods, and will attempt to demonstrate this to your children at our earliest opportunity. Our future well-being—the well-being of all of us on the planet—depends on the education of our descendants.
When evolutionists cannot make their case using science, the next step is compulsion. You will believe this or else. Notice how Dennett appeals to “free speech” to cut off “free speech.” Also, if you insist on questioning the evolutionary paradigm, you might be charged with educational child abuse.
http://www.americanvision.org/article/just-a-little-hairy-ape/
And Paul continues, like many before and after him, to argue against a creationist concept of what evolution is and what evolutionary biologists believe that has no basis in reality. YECers and ID proponents have such a poor understanding of to where modern evolutinary biology has advanced, they are still fighting against some pseudo-19th century Darwinian/Lamarckian theory that never really existed, or if it did, for brief moments until real science disproved it and went on.
The people within your post do not speak for all scientists and evolutionists, Paul.
You should be able to understand that[smile]. Almost like Barney trying to prove how evil Christianity is by providing quotes from Martin Luther on the Jews and David Duke on African Americans.
It’s good to hear from you once again on this topic Paul. You should comment/debate on it with us more often.
Mike: Chain of economic effect
I appreciate your effort to draw a chain, but I have questions about things that are more fundamental than the issues you mention here. Can we discuss this where it’s more relevant? Just name the thread (so we both know where to look), and as long as economic issues are relevant to it, I’ll show up.
John: Most interesting.
Yeah… weirdly, it’s a lot closer to what I had hoped Spore would be like than Spore turned out to be. In particular, it’s very useful for showing how randomness constrained by a few simple principles can lead to behavior that seems intelligent, or to morphological characters that seem designed — even, to borrow a phrase, “irreducibly complex”, partly because slight alterations can produce very different functionality that would be utterly impossible in “simpler” arrangements. (For example, a three-jointed “limb” can do things no two-jointed “limb” can do; this small alteration can allow the organism to do things its “simpler” relatives never could. Exactly the same sort of reasoning and findings have shown us where the E. coli flagellum and other “irreducibly complex” features came from.)
Paul (quoting Gary Demar): When evolutionists present their latest fossil finds as “evidence” of evolution, keep in mind that they could never find any bit of evidence that would disprove evolution.
With respect, if you think that this is a salient point, you haven’t been paying attention.
In order for a theory to be scientific, it must (among other things) be falsifiable. Ideally, scientists would like it to be easily failsifiable, at least in principle — since if it stands on potentially shaky ground and still remains consistent with the facts, it gives us greater confidence that the theory accurately describes reality.
Evolution is chock-full of these potentially easy falsifications. Some of them I’ve listed in this very thread (which is why it seems you haven’t been paying attention). Others relate to the falsification of general trends we think we see based on the evidence I listed in posts 401 and 411 in part 3 of “Should the church celebrate Darwin’s birthday?” (and which creationists keep ignoring); for example:
* Thousands of new species are discovered every year. On top of that, protein and DNA seqences are drawn from species never before examined and published in peer-reviewed works, at an exponentially-growing rate currently at about 275,000 species per day (or about 100 million per year, according to the National Institute of Health). Each and every one is a test of common descent. Find one species with a sequence that doesn’t fit common descent, and one of the major tenets of evolution utterly collapses.
* Find species that are not part of a cladistic hierarchy of organisms, and common descent collapses again. (This could be done by finding species that combined characteristics of different nested groupings — lizards with nipples (sound familiar?), gymnosperms with flowers, nonvascular plants with seeds, non-seed plants with woody stems, fish or amphibians with differentiated teeth or cusped teeth or both, primates with horns, and on and on and on and on…)
* Show that the tree derived from molecular evidence of descent is markedly different from the tree derived from morphological evidence of descent, or that either is markedly different from the tree derived from genetic evidence of descent, or that any of those three is markedly different from the tree derived from chromosomal evidence (tracking the location, length, and number of chromosomes rather than the genes themselves) of descent.
* Find a half-bird, half-mammal. Or a half-fish, half-mammal. Or any other transitional form prohibited by common descent as it applies to the laws of genetics and heredity.
* Find evidence to show that the chronological order of intermediates is wrong, phylogenetically or stratigraphically. Even showing that phylogenetic analysis and stratigraphic analysis give results that are inconsistent with each other would present real problems. It would also be difficult to explain if the observed correlation between these analyses decreased as we learned more and gained more paleontological data, but this has not happened.
* Show that any organism has a vestigial structure of any kind — morophological, molecular, or genetic — that is not fully functional in one of the ancestors of that organism. (It doesn’t even have to be a species. It can be an individual of a species.) Find a vestigial incus bone in any amphibian, bird, or reptile. Find any mammal with vestigial feathers. Find any primate with degenerate wings. Find any arthropod with a vestigial spine. Snakes commonly have vestigial legs; find any with vestigial wings. Find any primate with a vestigial gizzard like the one found in birds. Find any vestigial chloroplast genes lying dormant in the genomes of any animal. And so on, and so on, and so on…
* Show that any organism has an atavism of any kind — morphological, molecular, or genetic — that is not fully functional in one of the ancestors of that organism. (Make a list like the one above.)
* Show ontological development inconsistent with the lineage of an organism. We see teeth in the beaks of some avian embryos; why do we never see beaks in placental mammal embryos? We see tails on human embryos; why do we not see limb buds in shark embryos or manta ray embryos? (I am not arguing that an embryo goes through every stage of its evolutionary development; I am arguing that it will not have individual characters that go through stages that were not in its evolutionary development. Big difference there.)
* Present and past biogeography should conform to the phylogenetic tree. Demonstrate that it does not. For example, fossils are occasionally preserved with their entire habitat, which could (at least potentially) yield results we don’t expect based on the macroevolutionary spread of populations; this would lend a devastating blow to evolution. Show fossils of recently-evolved animals (like apes and elephants) in South America, Australia, or Antarctica (with the exception of apes that travel by boat). Show horses in South America in any period before the Isthmus of Panama rose to connect it with North America about 12 million years ago, or in Australia or Antarctica in any geologic era. Show a cactus indigenous to Australia. Show an elephant indigenous to a Pacific island. Show any Kenyanthropus, Ardipithecus, or Australopithecus fossils in North America, South America, Antarctica, Australia, Siberia, or any oceanic island.
* For many proteins (e.g., cytochrome-C), there is an enormous number of different genetic sequences that can form that protein in any given organism. Show that there are different sequences for the same protein in two different species that differ in a manner inconsistent with heredity, thus dismantling common descent. For that matter, do the same with redundant DNA codes. Or redundant pseudogenes. Or endogenous retroviruses. Or transposons.
* Show that DNA is recalcitrant to significant change at some barrier, or at least that significant change at that barrier (or even near it!) is commonly reversed.
* Show that life very similar to modern life exists as far back as we can see in the sequential strata.
* Show that the various stages of speciation we see around us are not real.
* Show that directly-observed rates of molecular, genetic, or morphological evolution in the lab or the field are inconsistent with rates found by examining the fossil record (thus putting common descent into serious trouble).
* Show the removal of suboptimal functionality (mammals without a crossing trachea and esophagus, for example, or a reptile or mammal without blind spots in their retinas) in a way inconsistent with common descent. (Evolution doesn’t “fix” suboptimal design except through minor modification of what exists. These suboptimal designs can in principle be fixed — the problem never even shows up in other lineages — but the modifications needed to make it work would be relatively major.)
* Violate parahomology (the principle that similar structures are pressed into use for different purposes — morphologically, genetically, and on a molecular level). Show that the primitive structures of an organism’s ancestors could not be reasonably modified into a modern organism’s derived structures. (In other words, for example, find a Pegasus; the immediate predicted ancestors of Pegasus had no structures that could have been modified into wings. Or a bird with wings and arms. Or a mollusk with chloroplasts.)
* Violate analogy (the principle that different structures consistent with different species’ lineages can perform similar function in different species). Cetaceans, fish, and penguins can all swim, but they all do so with very different structures, each one consistent with the ancestry of the organism. There are desert plants in American deserts and in the Sahara, but they use different structures to survive dry climates. Show, for example, a cetacean that uses fish-like structures to swim.
The sort of facile “Evolution cannot be falsified” reasoning in this article shows just how warped the creationist understanding of evolution really is; it also makes it easier for creationists to distance themselves from having to think about the evidence too hard, because they believe that those who accept evolution do so because they want to.
Paul (quoting Gary Demar): First, the scientist Leakey knew what he had found before he had examined it: he worked by faith, and viewed his findings by faith. He was finding “proof” for a theory already accepted, and he accepted his finding as “proof” on sight.
That’s because he knew the theory, and he knew what would be consistent with the theory (and what he expected to find) and what wouldn’t. There are lots of things he could have found that he also would have known would not be consistent with the theory (see above).
But who isn’t excited at the prospect of finding something new, and looking forward to the prospect of all the new things it might show us that we didn’t expect?
Oh, right. The uncurious. Some of whom, apparently, are creationists.
Paul (quoting Gary Demar): Second, the intense emotionalism and joy sound more like a revival experience than a scientific analysis.
The scientist who experiences no emotion while he conducts his analysis is a popular fiction, but has little reality behind it. (I should introduce Mr. Demar to some real scientists. Many get quite excited and emotional when new things are discovered in their line of work, even more so when they’re at the forefront of the discovery. Is it really that surprising that they should be passionate about their work? It is not inevitable that emotions should cloud judgment — scientists are very practiced at removing their feelings about a discovery from their findings about it — and it is not even necessary that removing emotions is the only way to conduct legitimate analysis.)
Paul (quoting Gary Demar): the final determination depends on who is doing the talking.
Here, Demar fails to recognize the difference between uninformed opinion and simply not having all the facts.
Paul (quoting Gary Demar): In reality, evolution is a substitute religion.
Oh, this again. What makes evolution a religion? It has no adherents (no one puts “Evolution” in the “religion” box on a questionnaire), no rituals, no belief in supernatural powers, no prescriptions for how human beings ought to treat each other, no observances…
What prevents it from being science? It makes falsifiable predictions, it is confirmed by direct observation and discovery, it is tested by experiment…
Just because it has a different model for how species diversified on the planet doesn’t qualify it as a religion. Nor does its broad explanatory power. Little in physics makes sense without relativity; does that mean relativity is a religion?
Paul (quoting Gary Demar): When evolutionists cannot make their case using science, the next step is compulsion. You will believe this or else.
Evolution is the only explanation that belongs in the science classroom. I’m all for discussing creationism in schools, but it’s not science. Other people might be more adamant about this than I, but that’s probably because watching people declare things to be factual that aren’t gets rather frustrating; and, frankly, their lies are a danger to the uninformed. Even though I don’t advocate removing their free speech rights because of that, I do insist that science be taught in the science classroom, and would heartily approve of education that discussed creationism as a social force, especially if they could highlight how it has been used to convince people of its point of view by misrepresenting what science actually claims, as this article does.
MattF:”Mike: Chain of economic effect” Let’s go to where it all began, the show that featured Doug Tjaden. It aired January 27,2009. You can read through some of Doug’s comments if you wish although it would be easier and probably more interesting to just visit his site and go to the “video series.” Here is the link to the “Fools Gold” program: http://www.truthtalklive.com/2009/01/27/fools-gold-global-economics-from-a-biblical-worldview/#comments
I will also make a comment on that thread that should appear in recent comment box.
Something else for Ted, and anyone else who claims to be able to show why the thinking of “evolutionists” is all wrong:
Let’s say that real evidence against evolution exists, and that someone has it. This evidence promises to revolutionize modern biology (since, according to Gallup, 99.985% of scientists accept evolution — even more if you restrict yourself to the life sciences), and prevent the waste of time and resources involved in making medicines and searching for scarce resources with flawed ideas about how things really work. What could this person do with his information?
1. Tell a scientist. Even if we assume that there’s a secret cabal of scientists attempting to keep a lid on this sort of thing somewhere, scientists are a big group, and they’re not a hive mind; if anything, they tend to be intellectual individualists who would go out of their way to avoid association with an easily identifiable and popular pattern of thought, assuming there’s legitimate reason to do so. This knowledge promises to catapult its proponent to instant scientific stardom, allowing him to show everyone why the current explanation is wrong and what facts a new theory would need to explain.
2. Publish in a scientific journal. There are a wide variety of them, and those dirty “evolutionists” can’t successfully intimidate everyone. It’s a scientific journal’s dream to print a story that would undermine the very roots of scientific understanding, which would force bold and exciting experimentation (and produce all manner of material to be published) in a desperate search for truth — while simultaneously propelling the article writers and journals where this earth-shattering material was first printed to the forefront of scientific attention and inquiry. In the scientific world, proof denying evolution would simply be one of the most amazing stories ever to break. Every biological scientific journal and research institution would be set for years — not only in finding and reporting new experimental avenues to direct our research, but in finding and reporting new evidences of the massive “evolutionary cover-up operation” that kept legions of educated scientists from knowing the truth for over a century and a half. There must be someone who wants a piece of that action.
3. Tell a biological research institution. There are many, and if they can not only demonstrate why everyone else’s research is misguided, but (in showing this) place themselves at the forefront of those who are actively trying to discover the truth, they can secure monies from funding institutions that other research organizations wouldn’t, because of their now-tainted reputations, even be allowed to touch.
4. Tell a company that attempts to excavate fossil fuels. Once it can be demonstrated that the current assumptions used to search for these commodities is wrong, a smart company would be willing to invest large sums of money in finding the right way, especially there is the distinct chance that using the right information will lead to the ability to find resources heretofore missed (because we used bad assumptions to look for them).
5. Tell a pharmaceutical company. They base the vaccinations and antibiotics they create on their knowledge of evolution. If there is evidence that evolution is false, this implies the existence of a more accurate method of creating medicine. Since these companies only tend to sell medicine to medical institutions that is useful, they would be interested in wasting the least amount of money possible and generating the most accurate pharmaceuticals they could. Searching for the way to accomplish this would be worth a lot of money to them — some of which would find its way to the informant’s pocket if he knew what he was doing.
But what do anti-evolutionists do with their supposed lines of evidence against evolution? None of these. They seem to deliberately avoid options that would revolutionize the world’s understanding; they avoid any line of exposure that would go right to the places where discoveries are being made so that this new data could be put into the context of our greater understanding. Instead, with a strange sort of animal cunning, they sell books and videos and give seminars to the much more scientifically illiterate general populace, who can generally be swayed far more easily in part because they have more important things to do with their time — like survive from day to day — than investigate scientific claims in depth, and see if the new information they have makes sense in light of what we have actually witnessed and tested. Real scientists never behave this way. They never charge other scientists for access to their data, nor do they attempt to exploit those who cannot contextualize their claims (because they lack time, training, and/or exposure). They openly present their ideas to experts in the relevant field. They publish their results in publically-accessible, relevant journals, where they can be analyzed, critiqued, refined, and tested by scientists everywhere (or by anyone else who wants to try).
Even if you want to argue that these people who tour the country, give lectures, and sell books and videos wouldn’t want the notoriety, one might ask why keeping people in the dark about the truth to keep fame at bay is legitimate; this argument also ignores the fact that one can publish or notify people anonymously. If getting too close to the temptation of money is an issue, one could simply donate the proceedings to his favorite Christian organization; Heaven knows there are a lot of people who need it, and it might be seen as a noble gesture to come out with the truth just so you could help these people. (What a great witness for Christ that would be!)
Ignoring for a moment the specious nature of anti-evolutionary arguments and analyzing only how they choose to disseminate their information, the only conclusions that make sense are that the teachers at the forefront of this movement are either fraudulent or foolish.
The whole idea that we’re just supposed to accept ideas from teachers about the natural world regardless of what observation tells us is patently ridiculous; people never behave this way with respect to other lines of inquiry, where demands for evidence are considered not only reasonable, but wise. How can creationists not see the paradox inherent in proclaiming the importance of faith in their teaching (in spite of what anyone who cares to look can plainly see), surrounded as we are by a world where even the faithful are right to demand certification for their plumbers? Why is it prudent to exercise a certain degree of caution where we can, and demand a certain level of proof when it comes to humdrum, workaday business, but when it comes to something much more valuable — how we understand Scripture — we are expected simply to acquiesce and accept whatever we’re taught?
It’s been ten days and nights Ted, we’ve yet to hear back from you, and the questions for you to address are REALLY starting to pile up. You words within post 75 gave me the impression that addressing our questions and debunking our evolutionary thinking would be a somewhat easy task, even if you weren’t used to doing this sort of a thing over the computer, and we evolutionists will, as you put it, always see the evidence the way we do due to our commitment to theological naturalism(which comes directly-whether we know it or not, from Immanuel Kant)[smile].
Been too busy working on that PhD to respond? More than a handful of Young Earth Creationists are eager to hear from you as well, you know. It would be a pity for you to let them down.
My Critterding creatures have done something interesting.
The rules I have in place are, for some reason, very good at making creatures that spin around and around and don’t go anywhere. This doesn’t provide much utility for going out and getting food, of course, so they tend to have short lives.
But very recently, one creature popped up with the ability to reverse its spinning direction. It’s taken over the entire Petri dish. It seems that entirely by accident, it has come up with a cooperative method of survival.
It instinctively seems to spin in such a way that it tucks its head in and uses its body as a blunt instrument, knocking food within reach of its spinning body helter-skelter. If it’s a lucky hit, a different member of the same species notices that food has been batted into the reach of its head, so it reverses direction and grabs it, then resumes spinning in the default direction. The upshot of all this is that unless a creature is stuck in a corner with lots of food, it needs other members of its species to survive. (Food sometimes gets ping-ponged around the dish, bouncing off several of these creatures, before finally settling into a place where it can be eaten.)
And survive it does, quite handily. These things have taken over. No other species has survived thus far.
Of course, it may only be a matter of time before some creature evolves the ability to “scooch”, not just spin, and gains the ability to acquire food independent of its fellows. Pushing is pushing, and only a small variation seems necessary to change the motion from circular to linear. Nevertheless, the cooperative behavior of these things intrigues me.
It makes me wonder whether early life on the planet was primarily greedy or cooperative, for example, and how quickly cooperative behavior developed.
It occurred to me that naming these creatures in order to usefully describe appearance and trends in behavior will be useful. (I’ve called this species “Whifferdill”.) Lo and behold, a microcosm of the science of evolutionary biology has needed to spring up just to describe what these things are doing in a useful fashion.
If this kind of thing interests you, you may also want to investigate Polyworld, which includes terrain in its environment to further constrain natural selection. Pack behavior has been observed, as have cannibalism, predatory behavior, and camouflage and mimicry. It’s also free.
I think I may have some insight that might help some of the creationists here who can’t seem to understand why we know evolution is responsible for the biological diversity we witness, even though we haven’t watched every single instance of it.
Let’s say that a team of astronaut scientists land on Gamma Hydra Four, a planet no human has ever visited. When they arrive, they see a bewildering array of… things. They call them widgets. It doesn’t take long to observe that they reproduce. Naturally, they’d like to know why some of the widgets are different from some of the other widgets.
Al: I bet they were all manufactured here in relatively short order in all these varieties.
Ben: I’m not so sure. Some of these things are awfully similar to one another. We may be witnessing a process, where something happens to make one group different from another group.
The reaction to these pontifications are mixed.
Chad: I guess we can never know for sure, since they’re all here now, and even if one widget could change into another in principle, we just can’t know if they were made and placed here relatively quickly, or if they diversified from one or just a few widgets.
Donna: Hold on, there. If widget varieties came about as part of a process, then regardless of what that process actually was, there are some things we’d expect to be true of every widget. And there are some things that we’d expect to be true of no widgets. And there are certain particular similarities and certain particular differences we’d expect to find between closely-related widgets. Likewise, if all these diverse kinds of widget were made separately by a manufacturer and placed here, there are certain things we’d always expect to find in widgets, and certain things we’d never expect to find in widgets. And while we’d expect certain similarities and differences between closely-related widgets by dint of the fact that they’re similar, it’s only reasonable to expect that the kinds of similarities and differences should follow certain patterns if they are not really related to one another. We’d also expect lines of evidence that are independent of our widget studies to agree with our conclusions, even if they don’t depend on our data.
Chad is using a line from the creationist handbook, often phrased by Ken Ham as “Were you there?”. Such a line of questioning is misleading, since it takes away from the fact that we can determine whether or not a particular process occurred by the kinds of evidence left behind by that process — evidence that goes deeper than the widgets themselves and looks at their organization and their internal structure. The confidence we place in the correctness of our posited process becomes more substantial if independent lines of evidence are consistent with the process. Our picture of the process may never be complete, but lack of completion is not a reason to doubt that the process we understand is correct; another suggested process consistent with the facts we’ve found might, and relevant observations or discoveries shown to be inconsistent with the process would absolutely.
It would not be valid for Chad to posit a process that contradicts observation and discovery, unless he were willing to posit a deceptive designer; and if he had no data to directly reveal the designer’s intervention, people would be correct to point out that supposing that a designer must have specially designed each widget — or even each “kind” of widget — from scratch is an unnecessary and superfluous exercise, especially if the evidence that shows interrelationship can be applied across different widgets (or different “kinds” of widget).
If the astronaut team actually watched as one “kind” of widget changed into another “kind” of widget, but Chad kept his position, the rest of the team would be justified in questioning his sanity.
I respect your dedication as a teacher, MattF.[smile].
I respect MattF’s patience. I long ago gave up several lines of debate on this site as equivalent to beating my head repeatedly against a brick wall.
Yeah.
I think of myself as having the patience of a python Kash, but unless it’s with a completely new poster on the topic, I’ve given up trying to be patient with people like Bob Griffin or Maz when debating on this subject if anything because of the fact that they keep making the same mistakes over and over no matter how many times or different ways one tries to get through to them.
MattF: [...] and relevant observations or discoveries shown to be inconsistent with the process would absolutely.
Whoops. Make that “absolutely show that the posited process is wrong.”
Thank you for your considerate words, John and Kash. I wish I knew what to say in return that wouldn’t sound forced or trite. Your kindness helped to heal a hard couple of weeks.
Why, your very welcome MattF.[ smile as warm as the summer Sun at high noon].
Well, it seems like some of the Whifferdills have figured out how to scoot along in a wormlike fashion. They can actively go out and search for food, though not very fast or very far. Selection seems to be making these new organisms, which I call “Dealers” (because they shuffle — get it?), with fewer body segments and very large eyes (so they can see dinner from far away). Their heads are also more atop their bodies (on a very flexible hinge) and can no longer be “tucked into” their bodies.
The curious thing is that they have retained vestiges of their Whifferdill behavior. You can tell when a Dealer first spies food because the first thing it does (before starting to crawl over to it) is raise its head. It has no reason to do this (other than the fact that this behavior upon spying food helped it as a Whifferdill), and in fact costs it precious energy. (When an organism’s energy falls to zero, it “dies”; motion and reproduction cost a lot.) They also search for food by spinning (rather than, say, swaying to and fro, or scooting and searching, or what have you).
An offshoot from the main Dealer lineage has developed a taste for animals, not just the food scattered about the Petri dish. I note that when they reproduce, the new one tries to shuffle away as fast as it can. Sadly, Dealers eating their young is not uncommon.
Now, when was the first Dealer? That’s actually a curious question. The ability to scoot along didn’t happen all at once. There were stages where all they could do was stretch from a base. There are a small number of creatures that don’t clearly seem to be one or the other. Still, I expect that the Whifferdills — if they survive — and the Dealers will grow more and more distinct over time until telling which is which becomes trivial for all organisms in the dish.
Seriously, this program is amazing. And they just issued a new beta (number 11).
Amazing as it may be MattF., you can almost hear the anti-evolutionists that are reading your post thinking to themselves “Yeah, but that’s just a game, it’s not real, just a fantasy for evolutionists, and it was CREATED by an “intelligent designer”, so….[smirk].”
John: Amazing as it may be MattF., you can almost hear the anti-evolutionists that are reading your post thinking to themselves “Yeah, but that’s just a game, it’s not real, just a fantasy for evolutionists, and it was CREATED by an “intelligent designer”, so….[smirk].”
Well, of course it’s not “real”, any more than watching planets orbit in a software orrery is “real”. It’s a visualization of abstract concepts that produces behavior that appears very similar to that of the “real” Universe in very salient respects.
The code that makes Critterding go is available for free download, too. There’s no code for “scooting”, no code for twirling, no code for directing changes in the population (other than the simple fact that the changes that are duplicated tend to permeate the population after a while), and no code for running as soon as you’re born. All of these behaviors fall out of a simple description of “natural selection” of completely random bodies and behaviors.
The fact that the rules of this program, the computer, and the programming language were created by an “intelligent designer” is no more of a point (or less of one) than that an “intelligent designer” created the rules for a software orrery. In neither case do I believe that these computer models imply that God simply made these things and stepped back, nor that He acts or acted merely as lawgiver, superintendent, or referee.
I do think both computer models curious in that they usefully show how seemingly intricate individual cases can be modeled with much simpler descriptions. (Frankly, if you believe as I do that God is behind everything, God creating the Universe this way allows man to see His faithfulness. We can see things behave so reliably that we can break all of our observations — and, ideally, all possible observations — down into a simple, general description, and continue to test and refine our explanation against the regular behavior of the Universe. If God were not as faithful as He is, such methodical testing of the Universe would not reveal consistent patterns to our empirical inquiries, and experiment would not be able to reliably separate good ideas from bad; in short, without the faithfulness of God, science would not even be possible. This idea will elude you completely if you believe that God’s most remarkable activities are seen when He bends or breaks the rules. But I digress.) It’s curious in light of them that there are so many who simply declare by fiat that — when it comes to biology, at least — they cannot.
It’s obvious, of course, that not all computer models parallel reality. But it’s especially interesting when we put in rules we think we observe, and the results of the computations show behavior that looks “realistic”. If we put in rules that simply do not operate in the real world, there should be a reason why the results look like the real world other than “there was a programmer”. To cut off the analysis at this point is to ignore the fact that we are capable of analyzing methods of analysis, and coming up with plausible, testable reasons why consistently similar outcomes appear similar.
God gave us the opposable thumbs and the ability to reason abstractly; we are also told that we are made in His image. Refusal to use either gift — to work or to think — is tantamount to blasphemy.
Oh I agree, and it IS useful and thought provoking, it’s just…easy for the misanthrope in me to imagine that the implications of your comments/observations about this program will be lost or unappreciated by many of the people who are reading them here.
John: Oh I agree, and it IS useful and thought provoking, it’s just…easy for the misanthrope in me to imagine that the implications of your comments/observations about this program will be lost or unappreciated by many of the people who are reading them here.
You know, John, there are times when I envy you. The pagans I know are, to a man, considerate, intelligent, and curious people. By contrast, if you show too much curiosity in some Christian circles, you are told that your faith is compromised and dangerous at best and counterfeit at worst. The benefit of having your faith “codified” is that there is a strong sense of your faith in history when it sinks in that your thoughts, as you read the words, parallel in some sense the thoughts people have had reading them for thousands of years; the disadvantage is that people seem generally unwilling to struggle to understand what they’ve read.
I’d give certain sensitive portions of my anatomy to be able to discuss the significance of my faith with someone who, like me, is trying to find answers; someone who’s trying to find out what’s true, open to the adventure of exploring this amazing Universe.
Thank you for continuing to post and share here, John, in spite of the terrible inertia of beliefs against you. In your own way, you give me hope.
Eloquent and touching, MattF.
The feelings are mutual.