Bible Defense

[Typhoon1244]

So what you're saying, Super 80, is you have no evidence.

Why don't you just come out and say it instead of doing all this whistling in the dark?

 

[Typhoon1244]

P.S. Super 80, you'd have to scrape together $100K for every whale on Earth, for starters. Can you afford that?

 

[Super 80]

Huncowboy,

Here's the post again so people will know what we're talking about and then I'll give you my response.

In “I’m Glad You Asked” by Ken Boa and Larry Moody looked at your question and saw that the exclusive claim of Christianity had an underlying assumption. They summed up your question as: Isn’t Christianity too narrow? They then give three possible answers. (The material is paraphrased, and/or quoted and added to with my own words.)

First, is that Christianity is not narrow. When you have the modern liberal mainstream position that nothing can be proved, they espouse a general feel-good position that there is an all-loving God. With a broad accepting view of religion that says that anyone who sincerely seeks God will attain it. It says that it doesn’t matter how you get to God as long as you get there.

But this goes against the specific claims of Christ and his disciples. Christ is unique among the founders of religion, in that He did not say that His way was right, but that He was the way to God. Christ claimed not only exclusivity but also divinity. Christ backed up his assertions by ascribing attributes of God to Himself; eternality, omnipotence, right to be worshipped, forgiveness of sin, and the right to sit in judgment.

The second is that Christianity is narrow and wrong. Critics of the Bible, agnostics, and atheists hold this view. While they point to Bible as flawed, the subject of various posts here on this thread by this author, their philosophy is in direct opposition to an absolute God who has authority over them. In their rebellion, they will attack Christianity to support their own selfishness.

This view can be summarized by its assumptions.

• A. There are millions of sincere worshippers whose religions lay outside the confines given by Christianity.
  B. Truth is determined by one’s belief, so even if Christ were right for us, it doesn’t mean He is right for everyone.
  C. Christianity is wrong because its exclusiveness makes it intolerant of other viewpoints.

A. In reply, just because someone is sincere, doesn’t mean they can’t be wrong. We can be sincere and right or we can be sincere and wrong. We have examples of poor people who are sincere but misguided, people who are swayed by cultists, charlatans, and legalistic rhetoricians. They have a misplaced faith. Sincerity does not make something right or wrong. Truth must be determined apart from sincerity.

B. The second assumes that truth is determined by one’s beliefs or lack of beliefs. To say that truth is what is true for that person, makes truth relative, and so logically, truth is no longer true. Truth must be an absolute outside of the individual’s realm of perception in order to be true. That is why we seek the truth. Similarly, the truth of Christianity cannot be determined on the basis of belief or lack of belief, but on the basis of objective criteria.

C. The third assumes that anything that is narrow is wrong. Most of us were brought up to believe that tolerance is a virtue. But when you open wide the door for tolerance, there is then no standard for truth. People who raise this objective may tell you for example, that some people enjoy raw oysters while others find them repulsive. Or they may say that the Ivy League look is sought after by some and rejected by others. The illustrations are always subjective decisions based on personal preferences and tastes. But the assumption that all truth is determined this way is false. Something is not objectively true just because someone does or doesn’t believe in it. To say that truth is relative, and supported only by one’s belief ignores the objective nature of an absolute. On this basis I can understand why people think that Christianity is too exclusive.

But the assumption behind this objection is not valid. Life is replete of examples of narrow and true. Our profession is one of them. We can’t land anyway we like, gear up, in a deep stall, sideways, upside down, in the grass, or nose first. We have a narrow band of parameters to meet just to continue the approach. The FAR’s are narrow, and as they apply to us, true. We can’t each determine our truth in flying. Moreover, no matter what man-made rules we operate under, we fly these aerospace vehicles under the laws of physics and aerodynamics that are external to us. These laws are absolute. They are narrow, and true. To hold a personal philosophy of relative truth appears to contradict how we conduct our professional lives.

The final answer to “Isn’t Christianity too narrow?” is that Christianity is narrow and true. This leads us to an examination of Jesus Christ. If He is who He says He is, then we can answer in the affirmative. If not, we are faced with alternative that He is a liar or a lunatic. We can look at the unique claims of Jesus and His credentials to show you that His works authenticated his words. This then establishes His claim as LORD.

 

[Super 80]

So what you're saying, Super 80, is you have no evidence.

No there is literally hundreds of witnesses that heard Jesus and believed. Remember the time when Jesus went across to the pagan Gentile side of the sea of Galilee and feed the five thousand and ended up with seven baskets of scraps after having just a few fishes?

That whole congregation of people was started by Jesus curing the man who was possessed by a legion of demons. That congregation of people became a church and through the next few centuries, that town of Decapolis was involved in every council of the Church.

There were eyewitnesses to Jesus' crucifixion.

There were eyewitnesses to the empty tomb.

There were hundreds of eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus.

There were hundreds of eyewitnesses to His ascension.

Now in a Court of Law, their testimony would count as evidence just as sure as any eyewitness could testify to establishing the facts of a case.

So, there is evidence for faith.

There is also physical evidence about Christ's crucifixion and burial, just as there is evidence for burning sulphur destroying Sodom and Gomorahea and three other cities around the Dead Sea. There is the physical evidence of the Ark, as well as evidence provided for the crossing of the Red Sea (actually the Sea of Acaba) and an alternate Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia.

You just don't accept it. Rather you want to believe in evolution. And vestigal organs do not prove evolution, as they can also be accounted for under common design. If they are useless, evolution says they would be dispensed with.

 

[Super 80]

In short in your reply to “A”, “B”, and “C”. I agree that being sincere does not mean right or wrong. Also believing does not define truth. Furthermore narrow or exclusiveness may not mean wrong. I am not familiar with the persons you quoted but I think they have the wrong idea and approach.

Okay...

If we try to be philosophical and get away from every cultural and social burdens for a moment, one could argue that even killing may be right and saving lives is wrong or evil’s way is the good way.

Well that gets to a moral issue. One of the problems of humanism is to define a moral set of standards that is not based on the Bible. The problem when you through absolutes out, is that nothing is defined and killing could be right. Certainly without the Law, man killed man, woman and child indiscriminately in the distant past and in different cultures. But to say one is right or another thing wrong does take a moral guide.

We don’t understand and are not aware of all the rules since we don’t see beyond a certain point. Theoretically if you could observe our system from outside, and if our system would be a part of an even larger system we would see the total effect of our action. I.e. it may seem wrong to smash a Roach if we would not know how it is not a desired creature in our kitchen. Because we just destroyed a living creature for seemingly no reason. But destroying that same Roach contributes for the better of others in a larger scale. The Roach will never understand why it was right to destroy him since all he was doing is trying to eat, live and survive. Since we don’t know everything we can’t make any judgments with certainty. At our level of the game everything should always be questioned.

This reminds me of the butterfly effect. Whether we can see the ultimate consequence and be omniscient to me is a moot question. We are not all knowing and we cannot see the total picture as you have set. Still there is a moral component upon which we must frame our decisions since we are not omniscient and cannot see the future consequences. But it takes a lot of time and effort to have to reinvent the wheel every time we make a decision to have to come up with a moral construct whether this is right or wrong. And to ask that we be omniscient too makes it impossible.

Absolute right/wrong and truth/false relations can’t exists w/o absolute knowledge. And even with absolute knowledge they may not exist. There may be a balance of both and it simply will be a viewpoint of the observer that will determine his individual truth therefore there won’t be no absolute truth or right.

Now here's where I really differ in my opinion. Truth is truth. If truth is defined as veracity to the origin, which is a bona fide definition, like having weights that are true to the very first standard that said this is an ounce -then there are events that happened.

Now that we don't know what happened, does not stop truth from being the truth. There was still an event. There is a truth to that. Just because we don't know it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That is the ostrich defense.

Individual truth is more of opinion or belief than truth. I can witness an event and still get it wrong. However I believe I have the truth because of what I remember. My individual truth does not change the actual or absolute truth. That is why truth in the Bible was established by the witness of two or more, so one person could not skew the truth by fault of his viewpoint. Just like with instant replay in football, from one angle it looks like he had possession before hitting the ground. From another, it is not clear and if it could be ruled on that viewpoint alone, then the pass is incomplete. The truth whether the receiver had the ball is not affected by the two views, but the ruling is.

However narrowing down to specifics, does decrease the chances of being right. But this is why I said in my previous post that I don’t argue that you or Christians are wrong, I just have hard time to believe they are right because they have it down to the last dot. I am trying to keep an open mind and it is hard to do so if I simply accept a story as it was told. That totally eliminates thinking.

This is a human response from the effects of relativism. If you do not have absolutes, if there is no black and white, it becomes to see in the world of gray. And if someone starts saying this gray is white and this one black, then a form of resentment takes over.

I have done a lot of thinking about the Bible. I was once an atheist, so I approached the Bible as a believer a little differently. I had to check the facts. And I came up on a lot of things that troubled me. So I investigated them. And I found that reading just the English didn't answer them, so I started seeing what the Hebrew and the Greek said, and a whole new world of meaning opened up to me. Combined with my study of history and cultures, I have gained a wealth of knowledge that lets me appreciate the Bible as several levels.

I have a lot of things that don't make sense in the Bible that I am hoping someone asks. But so far, no one that is asking has actually taken the time to study the Bible to come up with its internal difficulties. For instance in 2 Samuel 7:14 it says:

When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men.

Now this section of prophecy is referenced for Jesus by Christians in reference to Jesus' prophecy that He would tear the Temple down and rebuild it in three days where David's Temple built in a physical sense by Solomon was also fulfilled in the far sense by Jesus. But Jesus committed no sin, so how does "When he does wrong..." fit with Jesus? The answer is in the Hebrew.

But anyway, no one asks such interesting questions.

I think here we are kind of talking about two different things. Because there are more alternatives than just saying Jesus was either a liar or he is a Lord.

Well you can say that it didn't happen at all, or that what is written isn't what happened. However, that kind of doubt can only be removed by studying how these people came to their writing, and how it was collected and distributed. The earliest Christians did not operate in a vacuum. They still had eyewitnesses that could refute a false writing. And the passage of books was so widespread, that when they came together for council, they were well known with little difference between them as having an accurate copy was very important to the believers.

So I don't blindly believe. The textual critics looking at ancient manuscripts have evaluated the writing of the various scribes, and some are better than others. But the gist of the Bible is for all the minor flaws, there is not one part of the Gospel that has essentially changed. If you want a flaw where someone has inserted something that is fairly well know. The last part of Mark 16:9-20 is probably not part of the original. And the story of the adulteress in John 7:53-8:11 is not in the earliest manuscripts and the narrative reads from 7:52 to 8:12 just fine without it.

But from all my study I am confident that within the confines of language with Jesus speaking in Aramaic and the Apostles conveying that in Greek, that what we have essentially is what Jesus meant in a thought for thought translation. Luke, a first rate historian of that period, confirms much of the Gospel story rather than just copying existing texts, and while he used a version of Mark or Matthew, he researched its claim for himself fairly soon after the fact when eyewitnesses still could be found.

So I hope you keep an open mind and look for God.

 

[Herman Bloom]

I'm right there with ya typhoon.

Bottom line: These are people who are very much afraid to face any fact that may threaten their very fragile belief system. Fundamentalism is a very nasty beast...I believe we all saw that in September. They really have no "argument"...just a whole lot of rhetoric.

Super 80: I will say it again...scientists view evolution in much the same way they view, say, the "law" of general relativity. It is as much a "law" -- that is, there is as much evidence (much much more, actually) -- as any "theory" of nature.

Any educated person would recognize this.

And for the record, I'm a "christian".

Sleep tight.

 

[TWA Dude]

There were eyewitnesses to Jesus' crucifixion.
There were eyewitnesses to the empty tomb.
There were hundreds of eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus.
There were hundreds of eyewitnesses to His ascension.

And every year there are thousands of alien sightings, ghosts, and UFO's. Walk into any courtroom and listen to several "eyewitness" accounts of the same event and hear conflicting versions -- and none of them are perjuring! We're talking about events thousands of years ago. Heck, the few times I've witnessed an event and then read about it in the paper I've wondered what kind of filters they had on their glasses. I'm sure there were witnesses to Muhammed riding his horse to Heaven, too. If it isn't already clear I'll state it: eyewitnesses are unreliable, especially considering the huge emotional and historical impact of the events depicted in religious writings. The phrase "people see what the want to see" comes to mind, along with "we'll tell people what they saw".

Every religion believes it's the correct one yet they all contradict. I'm not so arrogant as to tell anybody that their religion is wrong since I have no way of proving that mine is right. In fact, I have no desire to prove that mine is right. My religion deems that I should set an example for others to follow. Whether they do or not is up to them and in the end only G-d shall judge.

It's really kind of funny, you know, all this talk about salvation and the alternative. We really don't know what happens after death so we're all just guessing. Call me cynical but I strongly suspect that as long as one is good and atones for sins one's choice of religion really doesn't matter.

Dude

 

[Super 80]

Fundamentalism is a very nasty beast.

I don't quite understand what your fight here is. Is it against those that have a steadfast belief or just against those that belief there are fundamental elements of the Bible that construct a worldview that is centered on God?

God commands a God-centered view. Mixing in secular liberalism where you pick and choose parts of the Bible is not inline with how the Jesus conducted Himself with the Disciples or how the Apostles acted in their walk afterward. Peter and Paul both sacrificed their normal lives in evangelism. James, a brother to Jesus on his mom's side, was called camel knees for his constant praying.

No, to be jazzed by the wonderfulness of the Gospel message is not nasty at all. Rather to being thankful for God's salvation, especially when we are so undeserving of it because of sin, makes the reprieve all the more sweet. There is nothing in this world more desirable than to receive this gift, it's better than winning the jackpot power-ball lottery, because it sustains for eternity, does not rot or rust and gives life.

Super 80: I will say it again...scientists view evolution in much the same way they view, say, the "law" of general relativity. It is as much a "law" -- that is, there is as much evidence (much much more, actually) -- as any "theory" of nature. Any educated person would recognize this.

Evolution is not a law. When you are speaking in scientific terms, these words have specific meanings, and scientists universally acknowledge that evolution is not a law. Hyperbole does not make your case.

Furthermore, there is a dynamic in the scientific community that sets the stage for a majority view towards the theory of evolution to explain the propagation of the species.

1. Scientists deal with the natural world. They study creation. This world is bound by cause and effect. Species differentiation and the fossil record are effects. Scientists then search for a natural cause for this pattern of effect. Because of their constraint of working solely in the natural world, it is an anathema for a scientist to "cop out" and ascribe cause to a something outside the natural realm, i.e. super-natural.

Evolution is not a new concept introduced with Darwin. It is only that Darwin supplied the mechanism for cause to explain the effect that made it possible for scientists to find a natural cause, and that is random mutation and natural selection. However, this is just a theory, because there is no hard evidence in the fossil record or the laboratory despite the best attempts to provide it that either mechanism leads to one species developing into another.

2. There is a second reason that is wrapped up in human nature and that is a propensity for individuals in a community to stay within the norms of the group. This occurred some 260 years ago with the first measurement of the speed of light. Coming in over the mark, the next scientific measurement was closer to the actual value, but was reevaluated so as to stay within the estimated error of the first. This continued through the eighteenth century as other scientists continually nudged the value downward within the bounds of previous experiments estimated error until early in the twentieth century, they were very near the mark, and a value was accepted around 1950 which has since held the test of science.

So people, and scientists have emotions and psychological motives being people still and not machines, are slow to stray outside the norm of their peers. To contradict the prevailing view is to be set outside the scientific community and ostracized. This has happened with a new leading edge group of scientists and mathematical theoreticians that exploring intelligent design in life. Thus, the theory of evolution becomes a standard of the community and to be accepted among your peers and get funds for research it becomes a prerequisite for admission into the the scientific ranks.

However, intelligent and thinking individuals can dispute the tenets of evolution because the theory has not stood the test of science. These questions cannot be answered by hard-core Darwinists:

• 1. How did single-celled life originate?
  
  2. How to explain irreducible complexity in bio-chemistry.
  
  3. How the tree of life looks more like a criss-crossing web than a simple tree -even getting one species mapped out results in many different patterns with no single theoretical grouping being agreed upon as with the horse.
  
  4. Why species are introduced fully formed in the fossil record remaining unchanged for millions of years.
  
  5. Why species can be linked with no fossil record for millions of years between members of an animal that is said to have evolved.
  
  6. How random mutation usually results in the loss of genetic material, then leads to the proliferation of higher life forms.
  
  7. How several different phyla of species literally explode in the fossil record coming about in the same place at the same geological point in time.
  
  8. How the eye has a parallel development in vertebrate and invertebrate rather than a linear progression from simple to complex as was first suggested.

So there are serious problems with the theory of evolution.

 

[Super 80]

And every year there are thousands of alien sightings, ghosts, and UFO's. Walk into any courtroom and listen to several "eyewitness" accounts of the same event and hear conflicting versions -- and none of them are perjuring!

I find it amusing that your criticism of Christianity being able to establish a fact in a Court of Law is reduced to ridicule by your comparison to what people deem as superstition.

First of all, Jesus fulfilled all the Old Testament prophecy about Him, much of which was beyond His control. Second, the witnesses to these events were not hallucinating, had memory loss, or were under the influence of anesthesia. Third, in this case, the witnesses are not in conflict with each other, but mutually support one central theme. Fourth, the earliest followers were taught by Jesus personally over days and even years. Fifth the earliest converts were aware of Jesus and may have known Him or heard Him. They were certainly aware of the facts of Jesus' crucifixion. And if not aware of His resurrection directly, knew the tomb was empty because it was not hard to go out the Fish Gate and see the empty sepulcher for themselves.

So these witnesses to historical fact were not removed from them as we are by thousands of years. They lived in Jerusalem and were aware of the political and religious events surrounding the Passover that year. While an eyewitness can be unreliable, once their testimony is affixed by like testimony, the rational conclusion is that we have an establishment of a fact, and that is indeed the rule that is used everyday in the Courts. And it is up to the Jury to establish the facts based on the eyewitnesses. When you have so many in agreement, that establishes a fact when talking about an event which is not a physical object that can be produced and examined.

Every religion believes it's the correct one yet they all contradict. I'm not so arrogant as to tell anybody that their religion is wrong since I have no way of proving that mine is right. In fact, I have no desire to prove that mine is right. My religion deems that I should set an example for others to follow. Whether they do or not is up to them and in the end only G-d shall judge.

Well the Jewish faith may rest on its laurels now, but that was not the case historically. Jews did proselytize in the Promised Land. They accepted others into their faith and their cities throughout the Old Testament.

Now I have not told you that your religion is wrong. Indeed I think belief in Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ is a logical extension of the Jewish faith in YHWH. I have tried to show you reasons for faith in Jesus as fulfillment of God's promise in Isaiah, the Psalms, Job, Daniel, Zechariah and even the Law.

So tell me, when Moses speaks to the children of Israel that escaped Egypt as they are about to enter the Promised Land he says; "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." DT 6:4 what does the word one mean in the Hebrew? You see even here, Jesus is established in the Law.

 

[Typhoon1244]

So, there is evidence for faith.

No. Faith is not evidence. Faith is faith. Untestable, unmeasureable, unknowable. Useless in a discussion like this.

This whole discussion comes dow to this: people like Super 80 are terrified of death. They've found this book that tells them not to worry because they won't "die" when they die. Any institution that challenges this book (biology, logic, etc.) is dangerous to them because it forces their fear of death back out of its cage.

So I understand it. It's frustrating, but I understand it.

What I resent is those who will force their beliefs on children, the under-educated, and the weak minded.

One other thing: we're all taught from day one of instrument training that our intuitions, gut feelings, seats of our pants, little hairs on the backs of our necks are not to be trusted. They will fool us when we least expect it. That's why we rely on our instruments. We learn (in most cases) to trust the scientific measurements we see before our eyes.

That's why I'm always surprised when I find a pilot who is a fundamentalist Christian...or a fundamentalist in any religion, for that matter. We make fun of the Egyptair pilot who sacrificed himself and his passengers in the name of Allah, but were his beliefs really any weirder than the tales of "witchcraft" that appear in the modern Bible?

 

[Typhoon1244]

These questions cannot be answered by hard-core Darwinists:

• 1. How did single-celled life originate?
  
  2. How to explain irreducible complexity in bio-chemistry.
  
  3. How the tree of life looks more like a criss-crossing web than a simple tree -even getting one species mapped out results in many different patterns with no single theoretical grouping being agreed upon as with the horse.
  
  4. Why species are introduced fully formed in the fossil record remaining unchanged for millions of years.
  
  5. Why species can be linked with no fossil record for millions of years between members of an animal that is said to have evolved.
  
  6. How random mutation usually results in the loss of genetic material, then leads to the proliferation of higher life forms.
  
  7. How several different phyla of species literally explode in the fossil record coming about in the same place at the same geological point in time.
  
  8. How the eye has a parallel development in vertebrate and invertebrate rather than a linear progression from simple to complex as was first suggested.

So there are serious problems with the theory of evolution.

Jesus, Super 80, how long has it been since you've been in school? All of those questions are answered--to varying degrees--in almost any book on Biology and/or Anthropology! If you'd put down the Bible occasionally and try to educate yourself, you'd have your answers! If you had even a basic understanding of the law of evolution by natural selection, you would need to ask questions like these.

 

[Herman Bloom]

"Jesus, Super 80, how long has it been since you've been in school? All of those questions are answered--to varying degrees--in almost any book on Biology and/or Anthropology! If you'd put down the Bible occasionally and try to educate yourself, you'd have your answers! If you had even a basic understanding of the law of evolution by natural selection, you would need to ask questions like these."

My sentiments exactly. These people are absurd.

 

[blueridge71]

You may not be able to test faith, but you can base faith on something that is concrete and testable.

Again, I refer you guys to the book, The Case for Christ , by Lee Strobel.

There are more manuscripts of the Bible than any other ancient work. Vastly more. We are talking about thousands versus a dozen or fewer for most other works.

These documents are all essentially the same, with no material differences. Thus, what we read today is what the authors intended for us to read.

Although, the gospels were written 20-30 years after Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, they contain what is widely believed to be church creeds dating back to 1-2 years from that event. These creeds support the notion that Christ proclaimed himself divine and rose from the dead.

At the time the creeds came into being, and even years later when the gospels were written, there were still many witnesses alive. They would have disputed the version presented by the disciples, but there is no record that they did. This is spite of numerous extra-biblical references to Jesus.

Thus the church did not grow on a corrupted version of events. And it started in Jerusalem, an area where many people had personal knowledge of the events that transpired.

The Case for Christ also mentions an extra-biblical reference that supports the biblical statements about the darkness at mid-day when Jesus died. The Roman source states that authorities tried to pass it off as an eclipse.

Furthermore, I'd just like to point out that Jesus made many claims of deity and proved them, not only by rising from the dead, but by working miracles while alive. The statement that Jesus was a good teacher is not an option. If He was a good teacher and moral man, He would not have claimed to be something that He wasn't. He was either a madman, a liar (both of which are not supported by His actions), or He was and is the Messiah.

With respect to biology, have you guys ever heard of entropy? A system goes from more order to more disorder. This flies in the face of evolution. It's like expecting an explosion to result in the creation of a Swiss watch. The changes observe in nature usually reflect this in that they go from more to less complex. An example would be cave fish losing their eyesight as opposed to gaining sonar.

Second, Super80 is correct in that there are no transition fossils. Instead, even evolutionists admit that the fossils representing current animal's ancestors appeared over a relatively short period of time. This is known as the Cambrian Explosion.

Furthermore, I'd like to point out that not just any carcass makes a fossil. They have to become buried, perhaps in mud or volcanic ash, for a period of time under intense pressure. What could cause this? Oh, I dunno, maybe a worldwide flood that buried millions of animals in a torrent of mud?

One last point, for years, it was thought that it took millions of years to create a fossil. After the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in the 1980s, I remember reading that a fossilized baseball cap was found buried in the ash as they did the cleanup. I don't remember hearing that anyone thought this cap was from the Paleozoic or Cretaceous though.

 

[Super 80]

No. Faith is not evidence. Faith is faith. Untestable, unmeasureable, unknowable. Useless in a discussion like this.

No there is physical evidence supporting the testimony of many which itself is another type of evidence for faith in Jesus as Lord.

Because unlike that first generation, we did not see the events and cannot walk in the places in existence then, we have no direct witness and so must believe without seeing firsthand what happened. However, the bibliology of the Bible sets it as the foremost intact work of antiquity so we have the testimony of eyewitnesses set in what has been shown from the historical clues concerning rulers, titles and places as being strictly a first-century account.

This whole discussion comes dow to this: people like Super 80 are terrified of death.

This is really disingenuous. From such an impersonal medium as a message board, where you get perhaps as little as 7% of the message and intent conveyed by an author, to then ascribe a motive that strikes to the core of an individuals psyche pales as a reach beyond even a trained psychologist in close consultation.

If death is nothing but nature suggesting you slow down, if there is nothing after the grave, then what is there to be afraid of?

If God exists, and I have provided a metaphysical argument supporting something eternal creating what exists now which you have not refuted, and Jesus is Lord, then the Christian has nothing to fear in death. Paul said for him to live is Christ and death gain. So Christians secure in their faith are not afraid of death. Indeed many have gone willing to death rather than give up their faith. The Bible says their sacrifice will be acknowledged with the completion of the fifth Seal.

They've found this book that tells them not to worry because they won't "die" when they die. Any institution that challenges this book (biology, logic, etc.) is dangerous to them because it forces their fear of death back out of its cage.

No I have several problems with the theory of evolution which cannot be addressed by dedicated Darwinists. I have serious problems with other religions that have a man-centered earth-based system of works to gain admission to nirvana. Because I am a thinking individual that weighs and questions what is written, I have come full circle to a steadfast belief in the Word contained in the Bible that establishes the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

What I resent is those who will force their beliefs on children, the under-educated, and the weak minded.

No one is imposing anything on your precious children. I myself was raised just like them by someone just at odds with Christianity as yourself, maybe even more so; to be an atheist. Like you, I believed that science held all the answers and God was not needed to come to where we are now.

However, because of my education and my scientific leaning I started to explore what Christianity was and could not refute it with a careful examination. Further, I learned all the lies that were used as fact then and still are today in presenting evolution as a fact. I don't like being lied to, and there are several icons of evolution that you are putting your faith into that are patently false.

That's why I'm always surprised when I find a pilot who is a fundamentalist Christian...or a fundamentalist in any religion, for that matter. We make fun of the Egyptair pilot who sacrificed himself and his passengers in the name of Allah, but were his beliefs really any weirder than the tales of "witchcraft" that appear in the modern Bible?

The Bible is not witchcraft and you are being insulting by comparing it to that. Furthermore, it is an insult to compare killing hundreds of people to the commands of the Bible both in the Old and the New Testament to have mercy on people, to love them and to help them. Comparing the EgyptAir F/O with a Christian, any Christian, especially one that takes the Bible seriously as the inspired Word of God is to denigrate a person without prior cause. That is prejudicial of you Typhoon.

 

[Super 80]

All of those questions are answered--to varying degrees--in almost any book on Biology and/or Anthropology!

No they have not. I have seen too many recent debates between Darwinists and Intelligent Design advocates to know that these questions are still being asked. Don't delude yourself. If they are so easy to answer, I'm sure you can find the resources to provide them. Until, then it is just another charge of yours without any evidence whatsoever being presented on your side of the aisle.

 

[Typhoon1244]

There are more manuscripts of the Bible than any other ancient work. These documents are all essentially the same, with no material differences.

This is false. Read the Gospel of Thomas, for one.

With respect to biology, have you guys ever heard of entropy? A system goes from more order to more disorder. This flies in the face of evolution. It's like expecting an explosion to result in the creation of a Swiss watch.

Entropy is not taking place on a planetary scale on this planet. Entropy can only occur if there is no external source of energy. Tomorrow morning, watch the eastern horizon, and you might notice a huge external source of energy.

...Super80 is correct in that there are no ]transition fossils.

That's not entirely true, but the fossil record does have gaps because...

...not just any carcass makes a fossil.

See? You solved the problem yourself.

What could cause this? Oh, I dunno, maybe a worldwide flood that buried millions of animals in a torrent of mud?

Uteer hogwash. If that were the case, why did it leave no geologic evidence?

Oh, that's right, I forgot. God can do anything he wants, so any logical discussion is meaningless. I forgot He gaves us brains and then punishes us for using them. How silly of me.

Religions are a lot like "zero tolerance" policies: they require absolutely no thought to function.

 

[Super 80]

One last point, for years, it was thought that it took millions of years to create a fossil. After the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in the 1980s, I remember reading that a fossilized baseball cap was found buried in the ash as they did the cleanup. I don't remember hearing that anyone thought this cap was from the Paleozoic or Cretaceous though.

Yes this is a case for rapid fossilization and stratification of organic material and rock strata. Carbon-14 dating of such strata and fossils show they are recent occurences. God's laws of physics which you cite are consistent with the evidence.

 

[Typhoon1244]

No they have not. I have seen too many recent debates between Darwinists and Intelligent Design advocates to know that these questions are still being asked. Don't delude yourself. If they are so easy to answer, I'm sure you can find the resources to provide them. Until, then it is just another charge of yours without any evidence whatsoever being presented on your side of the aisle.

You're starting to sound like Denver130.

(In fact...are you "Denver130?")

Super 80, there's not enough bandwidth here for me to post entire biology and athropology textbooks. When I have more time, I will post answers to those questions, though.

(I'm still waiting for some evidence form "your side of the aisle," by the way. You've ignored mine. I'd be happy to consider yours.)

 

[Typhoon1244]

God's laws of physics which you cite are consistent with the evidence.

Wait a minute: according to you, God has no laws of physics because he can do whatever he wants.

What's going on here? Is this thread finally melting your glue?

 

[Super 80]

This is false. Read the Gospel of Thomas, for one.

Round and round we go eh, Typhoon? The Gospel of Thomas is not canon in the Bible for good reason. To suggest that it refutes the Bible is to ignore the weakness of its origin, the dearth of manuscripts of it, and the rejection it received when it was first introduced to the Church.

That's not entirely true, but the fossil record does have gaps because...See? You solved the problem yourself.

The lack of evidence is evidence that evidence exists?

Now who is putting forth utter hogwash? That is so unscientific a claim as to unpresentable in any argument. However it does not fail the spin test Typhoon would present to defend his faith in Darwin.

But then that's just me thinking again.

 

[Super 80]

(I'm still waiting for some evidence form "your side of the aisle," by the way. You've ignored mine. I'd be happy to consider yours.)

Gee Typhoon, resorting to name calling...really. Besides, I already answered this in part. Perhaps you're not reading the responses you illicit.

Homology in vertebrate limbs can be regarded as Darwin did as having descended from a common ancestor, or as other pre-Darwin biologists did like Owen that regarded such vestiges as having a common plan.

There are two problems with problems with Homology as a central to Darwin's theory:

1. If Homology is defined as similiarity due to common descent, then it is circular reasoning to use it as evidence for common descent.

2.. Biologists have known for decades that monologous features are not due to similar genes, so the mechanism that produces them remains unknown

--Johnathan Wells, Icons of Evolution

I await your answers in like fashion.

 

[Super 80]

Wait a minute: according to you, God has no laws of physics because he can do whatever he wants.

You misrepresent me once again, Typhoon.

God's character as unchanging and immutable can be seen reflected in His creation. The universe is finely balanced in over twenty different measures. God's laws are set so solidly that we have an awesome degree of regularity so we can know what the effect will be to a cause. I can figure the arc and target of a projectile because the forces acting on it are constant. Once the variables are known, the result if a fate accomplished with Euclidian certainity. In fact, if one thing is clear from the study of the cosmos, is how much order there is in the universe. God's laws are in effect throughout the entire universe, not just in pockets here and there. Mathematics has its own laws and are not variable either.

This study of creation, called science, reveals several attributes of God: His universality, His consistency, and His truth. You can plug a variable in an equation and know the result just as we can know the consequence of obeying God both positive or negative.

But miracles are not a contradiction to laws of science set by God, but His signature on His Word. Miracles stamp God's hand in the formulation of the Law, the Prophets and His Son, Jesus.

 

[Typhoon1244]

The lack of evidence is evidence that evidence exists?

No, that is not what I said.

The fact that there are gaps in the fossil record does not prove that the Bible is valid. The fact that we haven't found an intact form of a certain life form doesn't mean it didn't exist. Look at "Black Holes." We "knew" they existed long before we actually saw one.

In any case, if the fossil record was the only thing the law of evolution by natural selection rested on, it wouldn't be a fact of nature.

As for the Gospel of Thomas, it has as much validity as any other part of the Bible. (It's actually very enlightening.) It didn't make the cut because it was harmful to organized "big-religion."

P.S. I went back and looked...I didn't see any "name calling." Unless "people like Super 80" is a name. (On the other hand, that's what got Ross Perot in trouble, wasn't it?)

 

[Astra Guy]

I see you guys are having as much fun as Enigma and I are having on another thread! Isn't it great to have some time off to BS?

 

[Super 80]

The fact that there are gaps in the fossil record does not prove that the Bible is valid. The fact that we haven't found an intact form of a certain life form doesn't mean it didn't exist. In any case, if the fossil record was the only thing the law of evolution by natural selection rested on, it wouldn't be a fact of nature.

Yo Typhoon! We're still waiting to get just one fact on evolution. Now you're saying because we don't have a fact doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It also means that you can't support evolution with a supposition that something might exist.

As for the Gospel of Thomas, it has as much validity as any other part of the Bible.

I have given you the bibliological reasons why the book of Thomas is universally rejected by the Church over centuries of history. Your reason of "big-religion" has no reasonable rationale whatsoever. Furthermore, there are fundamental differences in the book of Thomas that is openly at odds with the Bible. That along with its debulous beginnings is why it has been rejected. You just disregard the obvious and try to make a case of conspiracy despite a recounting of Church history that is not in dispute.

So it is intellectually dishonest to say something rejected on sound judgment by the Church destroys the Church. However it is on par with the effort to tar Christian faith by throwing mud at it continually to see if it sticks. So far, I have yet to see where you have yet to respond in any reasonable manner, except to change the subject and renew your attack even though you have not made a dent yet in the Bible.

 

[Super 80]

Typhoon,

Your attacks against the Bible and Christians is duly noted. Rather than keep on with this t!t-for tat "is to," "is not;" why not start a thread on Evolution and produce your evidence there?

If you want to ask a question on the Bible, phrase it. Read the Bible and ask what it is that you don't understand. You have my answer and other's answers on creation. There is a totally valid basis for interpretation that reconciles the Bible's Genesis account to the best that science has to offer (and that is not evolution) on how the universe came into being. It is not imposed upon anyone.

Equally caring Christians differ but the scientist ought to know that the Hebrew in the Bible can be considered to be the closest our modern understanding could be said in an ancient language which is totally devoid of scientific terms which has just two verb tenses and was written without vowels.

If you reject that, fine. Again nothing is imposed upon you and your children. But this is getting nowhere when you refuse to put forth answers or refuse every argument presented in opposition without showing why it is wrong other than to disparage the believer.

 

[BornAgainPagan]

This thread is dreadful. I know I know, I didn't have to click on it. It's much like driving past an auto accident. You have to look at the carnage.

Anyway, my contribution to this mess;

"Christian science" is an utter oxymoron. "Christian science" is science with an agenda. Adjusting research to fit some predetermined result is NOT science.

Sorry creationites... the most convincing evidence of evolution comes from research in microbiology and DNA, not Darwin. The legitimate science community is overwhelmingly behind evolution. Creationism has as much scientific evidence as a Mother Goose tale.

For you Christians that are having doubts about your beliefs, reference me. I was once a Christian until I woke from MY stupor. There is still hope.


BTW; This thread has the appropriate title of "Bible Defense". It's nice to know that at least some folks feel that the bible is on the defensive.

 

[Typhoon1244]

We're still waiting to get just one fact on evolution.

[Sigh!] (How many times do I have to type this?)

Okay, here're a couple:

(1) If creation had occured as described in the Bible, fossils of all species would be found in all geologic epochs. They're not. There is a progression from simple unicellular creatures to multicellular animals (worms, jellyfish, etc.), through fish to simple then complex mammals.

(2) Vestigal organs: probably the most obvious examples are the leftover "leg bones" found in most species of whale. They exist because whales evolved from a cow-likw animal that lived on land and migrated into the sea. They gradually (we're talking millions of years) lost the need for hind legs, but the "attachment points" are still found adjacent to the whales' pelvis.

(3) "Micro-evolution," as creationsists call it, is observed regularly in popluations of plants, insects, reptiles, etc. Moths change colors, frogs gain new markings, etc. These occurances are driven by the same processes that define "macro-evolution." They're the echo of a much more massive process, the basis of modern biology.

These are just three tips of a very large iceberg. There's more, but really, how much more do you need?

 

[skyking1976]

Typhoon,

Your attacks against the Bible and Christians is duly noted.

He never attacked anyone. YOU on the other hand.... All he has done is asked for some proof and an explanation. Why don't you go and find me a derogatory remark that Typhoon posted and I will recant. I've said my share of derogatory remarks toward the religious right and I stand by them. However, I have not ever questioned the virtues contained within having faith in God. Faith does not make you a bad person. Outward ignorance of facts makes you, well, ignorant. As an American I respect your right to believe in God and, in turn, you must respect my right to question the existance of God.

SK

 

[Super 80]

Again, we keep talking past each other. This argument is just going around and around and it's not going anywhere. I think your stance on evolution has become more of an item for faith for you than belief in God has been for me.

Again, a point by point rebuttal. I will answer these points in some cases for the second time, without any response to the challenges I set forth for the Darwinists.

(1) If creation had occured as described in the Bible, fossils of all species would be found in all geologic epochs. They're not. There is a progression from simple unicellular creatures to multicellular animals (worms, jellyfish, etc.), through fish to simple then complex mammals.

While life did start out in elemental terms, there are other reasons for this. One you cannot support large land animals until there is a soil basis for plants. To do this would require a long preparation until you have such a foundation. Once that is in place, then you have the conditions that allow a rapid proliferation.

Furthermore, the fossil record does not record a simple progression from multicellular animals to fish. There is a literal explosion of wholly several different phyla of animals in the fossil record which exactly matches the command for life in the sea to "teem." This goes against the origin of the species in a very fundamental level. One phyla of creatures does not rise over time to more complex forms, but a plethora of species develop in rapid fashion simultaneously.

(2) Vestigal organs: probably the most obvious examples are the leftover "leg bones" found in most species of whale. They exist because whales evolved from a cow-likw animal that lived on land and migrated into the sea. They gradually (we're talking millions of years) lost the need for hind legs, but the "attachment points" are still found adjacent to the whales' pelvis.

I already addressed this with homologic structures. Similarity of structure does not necessarily show common descent any mnore than it can be used for to show a common plan. Further, the gene basis for homology or vesitgal organs is not supported at the microbiological level in favor of evolution.

(3) "Micro-evolution," as creationsists call it, is observed regularly in popluations of plants, insects, reptiles, etc. Moths change colors, frogs gain new markings, etc. These occurances are driven by the same processes that define "macro-evolution." They're the echo of a much more massive process, the basis of modern biology.

Again the example of Darwin's finches do not show evolution. Nor do the peppered moths show evolution. They do show natural selection, but to say natural selection is the vehicle to evolve one species into another is not supported at all by those examples of natural selection. These animals have shown oscillations in their populations in markings and size, but this has not translated to a direction for change of a species.