Bible Defense

[Typhoon1244]

Last time I checked, no species were evolving into other species, either.

Ah, but they are. You just haven't observed it. Unless there's something you're not telling us, you won't live long enough to see it happen first hand.

An awful lot of the faithful have accepted what they call "microevolution" as fact. In truth, they can't ignore it. Evolution within a species takes place all the time. We've seen it, measured it, studied it, predicted it. In the same breath, they reject "macroevolution," or trans-species evolution.

The problem is that both micro- and macro-evolution are driven by exactly the same processes (natural selection, mutation, etc.). It's like saying you believe in Cessna 152's but not Boeing 747's.

 

[Herman Bloom]

You're right typhoon. How about antibiotic resistant bacteria? Certainly didn't take millions of years.

TonyC, your statement regarding how nothing is currently evolving only proves how uneducated you are.

I don't really feel the need to argue with people who make it so easy.

 

[Super 80]

I suppose one of Typhoon's examples would be Darwin's finches in the Galapagos Islands. The husband and wife team of Peter and Rosemary Grant went to Galapagos in the 1970s to observe evolution in action.

In 1977 a drought caused a severe reduction in the availability of seeds and the island's population of medium ground finches declined to 15% of its former size. The Grants observed that the survivors had slightly larger bodies and beaks to take availibilty of the tough large seeds that remained.

Their research is recounted in Jonathan Weiner's 1994 book, The Beak of the Finch, which called the change in beak depth "the best and most detailed demonstration to date of the power of Darwin's process."

The Grants reasoned that if natural selection can produce changes in beaks, perhaps it could also explain the origin of species among Darwin's Finches. In Scientific American in 1991 Peter Grant estimated the number of such events required to transform the medium ground finch into another species as surprisingly small: about 20 selection events would have sufficed.

However, what is observed further is that when the rains returned in 1982-3, the superiority of the larger size ceased to be a factor and the finches returned to their previous size.

In 1987 Peter Grant and his graduate student reported in Nature that they had observed "a reversal in the direction of selection." Peter Grant wrote in 1991; "the population, subjected to natural selection is oscillating back and forth."

It remains a theoretical possibility that the various species of Galapagos finches originated through natural selection. But the Grant's observations provided no direct evidence for this. And in the course of their work, they discovered that several species of Darwin's finches may now be merging rather than diverging.

This goes against the theory for how a new species could be formed to advance evolution. Darwin's theory requires species to split apart from a common source, not merge what was split back into a hybrid.

The available evidence on Darwin's finches, the most notable example of micro-evolution so far is:

• 1. Selection oscillates with climatic fluctuations and does not exhibit long-term evolutionary change.
  2. The superior fitness of hybrids means that several species of Galapagos finches might be in the process of merging rather than diverging.

Rather than accept the conclusions their observations had yielded, the Grants declared in 1996 and 1998 that the Darwinian theory of the origin of species "fits the facts of Darwin's Finch evolution on the Galapagos Islands," and the "the driving force" is natural selection.

This is called exaggerating the truth. It is what happens when you make the facts fit your theory rather than let the facts led you to form a new theory. In the case of the Grants, their observations had to be disregarded and reshaped so as to not to destroy the tenet of their faith in Darwinism.

-Material from Johathan Well's book, Icons of Evolution.

 

[TonyC]

TonyC, your statement regarding how nothing is currently evolving only proves how uneducated you are.

And you, sir, are simply demonstrating how one's passion can cloud his ability to reason. To wit: I did not say "nothing is currently evolving." Specific evolution is generally accepted as fact, as it has been observed - - one of the traits of good, empirical science.

Read with care what I said - - "Last time I checked, no species were evolving into other species... "

Absent empirical evidence to the contrary, my statement stands. General Evolution, that which is commonly referred to by lay people as simply "Evolution" or "The Theory of Evolution" is not supported by a shred of empirical evidence. It has never been observed. No species has been observed to evolve into another species.

Now, are you prepared to stop taking cheap pot shots and get down to a serious discussion of facts?

 

[skyking1976]

And you, sir, are simply demonstrating how one's passion can cloud his ability to reason.

Et tu, Brute?

 

[Super 80]

One of the assumptions of Darwinism was simplicity. He regarded the cell as scientists of his day knew it: it had a cell wall, a nucleus and some mushy stuff in between they called protoplasm because they literally didn't know what it was and thought it contained the vestige of the ancient primoral seas from which they theorized life spontaneously began. Darwin wrote that if the cell were to prove to be complex, his theory was shot. Because at the heart of Darwinism, the cell was like a brick, and by piling up more and more bricks, they could make better more evolved animals.

Now we know the cell to be an amazing complex. Not only do we have the key to the cell with the double helix DNA, but we know that the protoplasm contains working protein molecules that literally act like machines to carry out the functions of life. We also know these cells differ from species to species.

One of the difficulties evolutionists cannot answer is how the cell came into being. The Miller-Urey experiment has been shown to be flawed. Because life is irreducibly complex, all the elements have to come together simultaneously for it to work. This has actually renewed the analogy of the watchmaker.

A single cell is so amazing complex, that compared with the slow natural forces around it that weather and erode or build up and solidify, coming across a single cell is like seeing an intact working watch among same sized skipping rocks at the base of a cliff by the sea. The latter can be seen to have slowly changed over time, evolved, from the stony rock face of the cliff being split apart by action of the water into boulders, weathered down into rocks and washed smooth into an ellipitical shape not unlike the oyster of a watch. Looking further, one can see how these rocks are ground into pebbles over the years and those in turn become like sand which runs into the sea.

But the watch is self contained, and has differing internal parts all functioning in synchronicity for a purpose. There is no way for random elements to come to gether and build up so they function together perfectly with the aim to reproduce and live. This is the element of design that is found in all life that differs from the natural processes, for inorganic material cannot envision anything past itself, so it could not think to assemble itself for a purpose greater than its own simple existence.

Design needs a designer. Creation means there is a Creator.

The beauty of life in all its myriad forms shows the complexity of God who is involved in every minute detail of life, being the author of it in all its abundance.

 

[Timebuilder]

There is no way for random elements to come to gether and build up so they function together perfectly with the aim to reproduce and live. This is the element of design that is found in all life that differs from the natural processes, for inorganic material cannot envision anything past itself, so it could not think to assemble itself for a purpose greater than its own simple existence.

A very good argument for a "designer."

 

[huncowboy]

Super 80,

I hate to do this but I think our thread was deleted. Here was my answer to your post. I guess it kind of relates to the bible so it is not that much off topic.

--------------------

Ok so here goes my planned multi engine homework time. I am going to try to not quote too much from your post. 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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. What if there was no Jesus at all. Or what if there was a Jesus but he never claimed what is in the Bible. I think there are several different explanations. But people don’t keep an open mind. How can we so blindly believe in what other people said, heard, wrote so long ago. We all have to face it that every religion is only a story told by humans. It is an interpretation of different views and real or fictive experiences distorted by certain goals throughout history. Religion was a serious tool in many hands before. That alone makes me believe that it was deeply changed. Therefore IMO it can’t be taken word by word. The only way I would change my view on this is if I would experience Jesus myself in a way which is obvious to me. If that would happen I would be very surprised and very upset too because right away I can tell you I don’t like the way Christianity has been and it still is. But I try to keep an open mind and not reject completely… yet.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Absent empirical evidence to the contrary, my statement stands.

Unbelieveable.

You guys remind me O.J.'s jury...confronted with a mountain of evidence of every kind that screams GUILTY, and they still voted "innocent."

There's enough physical evidence--stuff you can see and touch--that supports the law of evolution to fill several museums and libraries. But because there isn't any support to be found in your various books of mythology, you ask "where's the evidence?"

It's like standing in an airport and loudly declaring that human flight is impossible.

These threads have been going on for weeks now. I've discussed vestigal organs, transitional species, the fossil record, carbon dating, etc, etc. But no one, no one, has come up with one, single, verifiable piece of physical evidence that supports the modern Bible.

(I'm a little surprised nobody's mentioned the Shroud of Turin hoax.)

 

[Super 80]

There's enough physical evidence--stuff you can see and touch--that supports the law of evolution to fill several museums and libraries. But because there isn't any support to be found in your various books of mythology, you ask "where's the evidence?"

The law of evolution? THE LAW OF EVOLUTION? The law of evolution?

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha (inhale) hahahahahahahahahah!

There is no transitional species, just different systems for piecing together different fossil species. The fossil record refutes Darwin's theory so it has been radically changed so its very essence has been nullified. In all the museums in all the world there is not one bit of evidence for the gradual change of one species into another. All you have are different species that you can line up in various trees depending on the author as to how they "evolved." But they are all different and remained so during their lifetimes and there can be millions of years between fossil "ancestors" in any family line.

No, you give me one piece of real evidence and I'll turn it in for the $100,000 prize.

The problem Typhoon is that you've rejected God. Until you do start to look for Him, He'll hide His face from you. And that is not an enviable place to be when Christ returns, or as the Old Testament calls it, the Day of the Lord.

 

[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?