P.S. Olaf, if you don’t think that you can build a time machine by yourself then pray to your God for assistance.

MB4 on June 18, 2008 at 7:48 PM

Creationism is indeed untestable, and you have failed to show me a single experiment by means of which it can be verified or falsified.

The fact that the flagellum’s complexity is not irreduceable doesn’t falsify creationism; the true believer will simply say that that’s the way their chosen deity did it. That’s their simplistic ‘just so’ story.

Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 7:49 PM

When an environment stays the same, there’s no selection pressure for morphological changes. This does not prevent the genome from mutating in other, morphologically nonconsequential ways.

And when your links prove my points, why shouldn’t I use them?

Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 7:52 PM

Pretend you’re God for a second (probably blasphemous, but all sins are forgiven, right?). You want to whip up a batch of humans. Do you

a) Wait about 10 billion years, make some bacteria, then make some fish, then make some dinosaurs, then kill some dinosaurs, make a bunch of primates that look like humans, then finally get around to conjuring up a couple of humans.

or

b) Create the laws of chemistry so that this amazing molecule will emerge; a molecule that can build millions of different organisms over billions of years. And the best part: you don’t have to do anything because the molecule replicates itself, discovering new lifeforms as it searches the genome.

I think some Christians aren’t giving their God nearly enough credit.

RightOFLeft on June 18, 2008 at 7:53 PM

It is also possible that tuataras undergo morphological mutations, but that they have proven to be hindrances to their hosts’ survival until reproduction, and hence they die off before their reproduction can happen, and those mutations are thus selected against.

Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 7:55 PM

Just how fallible or evil do believers in intelligent design believe their God to be? So fallible as to create all manner of forms of cancer and illnesses and maladies, afflicting the good every bit as much as the bad, by accident or to have been so evil as to have done it by design?

This is not a logical question. Good people also get run over in traffic and die of heart attacks. Everyone dies.

aengus on June 18, 2008 at 8:04 PM

This is not a logical question. Good people also get run over in traffic and die of heart attacks. Everyone dies.

aengus on June 18, 2008 at 8:04 PM

But not everybody suffers.

RightOFLeft on June 18, 2008 at 8:07 PM

But not everybody suffers.

RightOFLeft on June 18, 2008 at 8:07 PM

Is this a joke? Everyone suffers. Life is suffering.

aengus on June 18, 2008 at 8:14 PM

All Miller did was to show that Behe’s pet argument for creationism worked against him, not for him. In other words, he showed that the existence of the flagellum was not an ‘irreduceable complexity’ disproof of the theory of evolution. He did not disprove either intelligent design or creationism, because they are they are different names for a belief that the universe was created by an intelligent designer (I suppose you consider Jehohah to be such an intelligent designer), and not for a scientific theory. Even the idea that this planet was seeded by aliens or spores from planets that earlier possessed life still begs the question about that life’s origins, and intelligent designers end up, directly or indirectly, with an assertion of the omniscient and omnipotent deity in which they a priori believe.

A scientific theory, on the other hand, can never be verified absolutely, but it can be falsified absolutely. Only belief systems are held, by their acolytes, as being absolutely true. But believing doesn’t make it so.

Specific evidence for a general assertion (that is, if it actually applies) removes it from the realm of absolute belief or non-belief and places it in the realm of statistically probable knowledge, and that statistic can asymptotically approach, but never achive, absolute certainty, for the future, and what may be discovered inside it, remains open to further modification, refinement, elaboration, or even falsification.

Our sciences, which proceed by induction according to the Verification Principle, are sciences of matter and energy. The sine qua non (condition in the absence of which they would not be what they are) of matter and energy is that they be sensorily perceivable phenomena. These immanent objects of perception are then measured by relating our perceptions of them to our perceptions of intersubjectively agreed-upon standards of measurement which are themselves physical. These quantified perceptions must then be amenable to repetition at will by means of any duplication of the conditions under which they appear. This method cannot be used to either verify or falsify the presence or absence of transcendent nonphysical Mind. Our sensuous perceptions, our technological augmentation of them, our devices of measurement, our method of repetition are all immanent and physical; they are categorically incapable of this task. We cannot prove God is anywhere, and neither can we prove that there is anywhere God is not.

We can, however, show how things may come about without resorting to such metaphysical instigators. And in such cases, Occam’s Razor applies; all other things being equal, that is, admitting that the fervency of one’s belief in X has nothing to do with whether or not X is indeed the case, the simplest explanation that accounts for all of the available data and is contradicted by none of it is to be preferred. Indications of validity and soundness include internal consistency, external coherence with neighboring well-supported theories, and how well the theory-map fits the fact and evidence territory in its totality. As of now, and for a long long time, in these particulars, there has been no contest whatsoever between the theory of evolution and the doctrine of creationism, including when it adopts a public relations name change and calls itself intelligent design.

Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 8:17 PM

Is this a joke? Everyone suffers. Life is suffering.

aengus on June 18, 2008 at 8:14 PM

Cancer. Die in your sleep. Your choice.

RightOFLeft on June 18, 2008 at 8:19 PM

It is also possible that tuataras undergo morphological mutations, but that they have proven to be hindrances to their hosts’ survival until reproduction, and hence they die off before their reproduction can happen, and those mutations are thus selected against.

Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 7:55 PM

another statment of FAITH!! you’re full of ‘just-so’ stories!! laughable!!

do you have any clue how you appear? you really need to take logic 101

right4life on June 18, 2008 at 8:25 PM

Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 8:17 PM

a lot of words, but you say nothing..you are indeed a perfect evolutionist.

when you have some facts to back up your BS, let me know, but I won’t hold my breath!

right4life on June 18, 2008 at 8:26 PM

It doesn’t make me uncomfortable. If you believe, like RightOFLeft, that not everyone suffers then we are operating from philosophical presumptions so far apart that we might as well be conversing in different languages.

aengus on June 18, 2008 at 8:18 PM

Obviously not what I meant. Anyway, isn’t the usual cop-out something like, “the trials of life are insignificant compared to eternity?”

RightOFLeft on June 18, 2008 at 8:27 PM

How about this one:

God is conceived of as being both omniscient (all-knowing) and omnipotent (all-powerful). But an omniscient deity would know the future, and thus would be powerless to change it, while an omnipotent deity could change the future at will, and thus could not know it with certainty in advance. If such a deity knew in advance what changes it would and would not make in the future, it would either be powerless to do differently, in which case it would not be omnipotent, or able to change such decisions, in which case it would not be omniscient. These two properties are like the irresistable force and the immoveable object; they cannot simultaneously cohere in a single universe.

The problem is in attributing any kind of absolute atributes to deity. When one looks at these attributes, they are generally absolute crystallizations of human virtues (wisdom, strength, etc.), and the deity is thusly framed as a perfect quasihuman.

Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 8:29 PM

But not everybody suffers.

If you believe, like RightOFLeft, that not everyone suffers

Well that wasn’t exactly my whole point, and I’m not sure that it was his whole point either, but of course RightOfLeft is correct on that as clearly not everyone suffers, certainly not to anything remotely like the degree that some do.

Obviously not what I meant.

Okay I think that I was arguing that life fundamentally involves suffering for everyone and you were arguing that not everyone is exposed to extreme suffering. Correct?

Anyway, isn’t the usual cop-out something like, “the trials of life are insignificant compared to eternity?”

Don’t know. But I didn’t say that so its not really relevant.

aengus on June 18, 2008 at 8:34 PM

Both scientists and religious people of various and sundry theistic faiths possess ways to understand the world around us. Religionists believe that the one that was given to them in some ancient written scripture or another is the case, while scientists indefatiguably interrogate the text of the universe and that which is in it in order to compose, and continuously modify, theirs. Scientists have as of yet found no necessity for the invocation of (insert favored deity here) did it, but the invocation of precisely some deity or another is what theists of whatever stripe demand, regardless of whether such an invocation is necessary to explain anything.

Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 8:36 PM

He is able, but not willing, but not for the reasons that Epicurus supposes. Dostoyevsky explains it (in parable( better than I can but then its easier to quote a few sentences than it is to quote 70 pages of a novel.

At least you’re not quoting Seneca.

aengus on June 18, 2008 at 8:25 PM

There is no chance whatsoever, none at all, absolutly zero, that there is a God that is both good and all powerful. As Yogi said, “You can’t get there from here”.

There may by some exceedingly remote chance be an all powerful God, but then It would have to be malevolent, maybe kind of like Olaf but even much more so, or there may be a God that is good but of limited power, vast power compared to yours or mine but still vastly less than unlimited or all powerful. If I were a believer I would go with the later.

MB4 on June 18, 2008 at 8:40 PM

I suppose atheists will begin arguing that they have a higher IQ than God (hypothetically of course).

aengus on June 18, 2008 at 8:29 PM

Well it’s like they say, “You can’t beat somethin’ with nothin’.”

MB4 on June 18, 2008 at 8:47 PM

right4life;
I’m sure God still loves you, at least. (I won’t speak for anyone else, though.)

As for your repeated question: The tuatara. Like the Coelacanth fish it is a well-preserved descendant of an ancient species — not just any old species at that, but one of those transitional life forms you would certainly like to tell us never existed. Genetic studies have shown, however, that while the gross physical characteristics have not changed much, the DNA has continued to change and some of those changes have been reflected in the fossil record. Basically, this — like other ancient species — has found a stable, comfortable niche where large deviations from the basic structure are not advantageous. That is, until foreign species arrived and drove them into quite rapid extinction on the main islands of New Zealand that had been their home. The survival of well-adapted transitional forms is not especially remarkable, especially in isolated environments like New Zealand or Australia (but when the isolation ends, though, more competitive species are frequently able to quickly overwhelm them). The platypus and the echidnae still lay eggs, despite being mammals. The marsupials are between egg-laying mammals and placental mammals in terms of their reproductive strategy. However, these are not the exact same as the actual ancient ‘transitional forms’ but rather a seperate line of descent from those ‘in between’ species that happens to preserve these particular traits. Modern platypi are different from ancient ones. Modern kangaroos are different from ancient ones. Specifically with the tuatara, modern species have better cold adaptations than their Mezozoic ancestors. And so your ‘point’ falls down. Tuatara have changed, and changed in ways that allowed them to survive in their local environment — until that environment changed more rapidly than they could adapt to when other species arrived by boat.

Also, Miller can claim anything he wants; I can claim to be the Emperor of the world. Claims mean nothing. The fact of the matter is that a step-by-step progression of flagellum evolution has been mapped out. A step-by-step evolution of the eye has been mapped out. A step-by-step path of immune system development has been mapped out. The test in these will be in continued genetic analysis — we have barely scraped the surface in terms of that field.

The fact of the matter is that ID is built on half-truths and cherry-picked facts as much as (or more than) Global Warming (which I feel should be excluded from schools as it teaches the religion of Gaiaism or Earth-worship in its current forms as well as being fundamentally flawed as science). If you don’t like the cherry-picked data, half-truths, and faith-based spin of the Earth worshippers, aren’t you a hypocrite for defending another faith-based distortion of facts simply because it re-inforces your own beliefs?

Also science instruction should focus, in my opinion, more on the process and the inherent limitations of science, and less on the results. The results are (and ought to be) in a state of constant flux, anyways. Science cannot answer many questions. It has no answer for moral questions. It has no answer for theological questions. It is inappropriate to try to use science to answer such questions, though as has been noted this has been done in the past, because that is not what science can properly answer. Science is a limited tool that has very strict limitations on its applicability. Atheists who attempt to use science to justify their atheism are angaging in a very blatent form of circular reasoning — the scientific process does not look for supernatural explanations, so of course it does not find them.

That having been said, the only people I’ve known who have the biggest problem with evolution are biblical literalists whose major complaint is not that the process is inherently atheistic, but rather specifically atheistic towards their own pre-christian Chaldean mythology. And it isn’t only biology that draws their ire — astronomy (teaches an ancient universe), geology (teaches no global flood), history (teaches existence of pre-flood civilizations that were not interrupted by the flood), etc., etc., etc. Most theists I’ve known, outside of fundamentalists of several faiths*, have accepted a kind of theistic evolution where the operations of God are more or less invisible.

*I’ve known several Muslims, and in most regards moderate Muslims are pretty much like fundamentalist Christians in terms of how they view their faith and how central that faith is to their daily lives. They also tend to be Muslim Creationist. Islamic creationism has no problem with evolution of animals; however, it teaches that humans were exlpicitly and directly created from dust and/or mud directly by God. The Koran says so, and it must be true. Fundamentalist Muslims are something else, entirely. That’s a different discussion.

TABoLK on June 18, 2008 at 8:52 PM

Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 8:29 PM

How about this one:

For some reason, you conceive of God as being constrained by his creation. If God created the universe and everything in it, and time is an attribute of the universe, then it is also a creation of God. God exists outside of time (Psalm 90, 2Peter 3) and is not constrained by it.

God knows the timeline (all-knowing), because he has already laid it out (all-powerful) according to his plan (1Cor 2:9, Eph 2:10, Heb 11:40). We are simply unable to see the bigger picture.

dominigan on June 18, 2008 at 8:55 PM

dominigan, Either God can change the features of the big picture, or else God cannot. If God can, then God is not omniscient; if God cannot, then God is not omnipotent. There is no wriggle room between the horns of this either/or dilemma, at least not for those who accept logic - and if they don’t, they are in no position to argue for or against anything, for it is by means of logic that assertions are contested and defended.

Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 9:03 PM

The word “good” derives from the word “God”.
Errr, no. ‘Good’ come from a PIE word meaning ’suitable’ or ‘unifying.’ ‘God’ comes from a PIE word meaning ‘that which is invoked.’ The direct word that meant ‘god’ in PIE was ‘dius’ or ‘dheus’ — it was where the pagan god names Jupiter, Zeus, and Tiw came from and where the latin word ‘deus’ came from, too.
In any case, the similarity only exists in a couple of Germanic languages. In most other languages the two concepts are clearly seperate.

TABoLK on June 18, 2008 at 9:08 PM

In any case, the similarity only exists in a couple of Germanic languages. In most other languages the two concepts are clearly seperate.

If Christianity were somehow banished from existence then all the European languages would be instantly rendered unintelligible.

aengus on June 18, 2008 at 9:14 PM

Just how fallible or evil do believers in intelligent design believe their God to be? So fallible as to create all manner of forms of cancer and illnesses and maladies, afflicting the good every bit as much as the bad, by accident or to have been so evil as to have done it by design?

MB4 on June 18, 2008 at 8:00 PM

I’m going to use a very personal event to illustrate my Christian viewpoint about God…

My grandmother just underwent a triple-bypass this morning. They discovered her heart issues after she had several small mini-strokes. She is the strongest person I know, after having taken care of my grandfather who had Parkinsons for 14 years before passing away. She is in great pain now right now… and yet is still a strong Christian. She should hate God, but instead loves him.

You see, she understands that hardships come to all people. But Christians come together in times of hardship. Our family, as usual, has come together to love and care for her. God has provided this time to bring out our love for each other. And THAT is worth the momentary troubles.

I saw the same thing when I went down to help after Katrina. Every church was mobilized and Christians had poured into the area and were following God’s plan. After one work crew had stopped by and asked a man if he needed the tree removed off his roof. He said no (it was totaled), but asked if we were Christian. We said yes. He said he knew we were because we were the 10th crew to stop and ask if he needed help… every since one of them was a Christian work crew, operating out of a local church.

God gives us opportunities to demonstrate the love of Christ through our lives.

dominigan on June 18, 2008 at 9:20 PM

oops forgot the link…

link

right4life on June 18, 2008 at 9:23 PM

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus

MB4 on June 18, 2008 at 8:20 PM

That nonsensical reasoning was answered long ago. But it’s hard to hear when one has one’s fingers in his/her ears singing,”La la la la la .”

Calling something “nonsensical reasoning” rather than shooting it down is pretty much a desperate and failing retort, if one even chooses to be very generous and charitably calls it a “retort” and “pretty much”, and I think that you are clearly the one with your fingers in your ears going “La la la la la”.

I suppose atheists will begin arguing that they have a higher IQ than God (hypothetically of course).

aengus on June 18, 2008 at 8:29 PM

That is exactly what MB4 is claiming.

davidk on June 18, 2008 at 9:08 PM

Like I already said, you can’t beat somethin’ with nothin’. Can’t be done.

MB4 on June 18, 2008 at 9:25 PM

The fact of the matter is that ID is built on half-truths and cherry-picked facts as much as (or more than) Global Warming (which I feel should be excluded from schools as it teaches the religion of Gaiaism or Earth-worship in its current forms as well as being fundamentally flawed as science). If you don’t like the cherry-picked data, half-truths, and faith-based spin of the Earth worshippers, aren’t you a hypocrite for defending another faith-based distortion of facts simply because it re-inforces your own beliefs?

hate to tell ya, but evolution is based upon faith, the faith of atheism.

you’re a liar and a hypocrite telling ‘just-so’ stories just enforce your athiestic faith, which is itself a lie.

how does it feel to know your whole life is a lie?

right4life on June 18, 2008 at 9:27 PM

dominigan, Either God can change the features of the big picture, or else God cannot. If God can, then God is not omniscient; if God cannot, then God is not omnipotent. There is no wriggle room between the horns of this either/or dilemma, at least not for those who accept logic - and if they don’t, they are in no position to argue for or against anything, for it is by means of logic that assertions are contested and defended.

Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 9:03 PM

And I’m saying that God doesn’t need to change it since he’s already laid it out according to his plan.

God is all-knowing because he sees the entire timeline. God is all-powerful because he CREATED the timeline.

Your “dilemma” only occurs in your mind because you don’t believe His Word… 28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son… (Romans 8:28-29)

dominigan on June 18, 2008 at 9:30 PM

Which is it, is man one of God’s blunders or is God one of man’s?
- Friedrich Nietzsche

MB4 on June 18, 2008 at 9:31 PM

Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.
- Mark Twain

Yeah, like believing in darwinian evolution.

davidk on June 18, 2008 at 9:35 PM

the world’s most famous scientist, Albert Einstein. Says he:
“Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks. . . .
“Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.”

right4life on June 18, 2008 at 9:40 PM

Either God can change the timeline or God can’t. If God can, then God is not omniscient, but if God can’t, then God is not omnipotent.

The principle applies no matter what name you change it to.

Nietszche once said that faith is not wanting to know. But it is worse than that, now. These days, faith is wanting NOT to know, and wanting no one else to know, either, if that knowledge causes them problems with their beliefs.

BTW: Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are completely different things, applying to two different classes (the class of matter/energy vs. the class of living things). Neither of them either supports or opposes the other, and their mechanisms are quite different.

However, the red-shift radiation echo from the Big Bang permeates every point in the universe, so far as we know.

Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 9:42 PM

The eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have done it better. How could this marvelous instrument have evolved by chance, through a succession of random events? Many people in Darwin’s day agreed with theolgian William Paley, who commented, “There cannot be a design without a designer.”

Robert Jastrow [An evolutionist]

davidk on June 18, 2008 at 9:46 PM

These days, faith is wanting NOT to know, and wanting no one else to know, either, if that knowledge causes them problems with their beliefs.

Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 9:42 PM

That statement is absurd.

davidk on June 18, 2008 at 9:48 PM

MB4 on June 18, 2008 at 9:30 PM
MB4 on June 18, 2008 at 9:31 PM
MB4 on June 18, 2008 at 9:31 PM

MB4, these quotes you’ve been using surprise me. I don’t know if you think that they gouge the reasonableness of Christianity or if you’re only throwing out any anti-Christian quote you come across.

They show no understanding at all of the basic beliefs and tenets of Chrisitanity.

You’re completely missing the target that you are attempting to hit.

Skidd on June 18, 2008 at 9:50 PM

When you think about it, it’s really no different than what McCain has done to his base on immigration and a slew of other issues.

very true…I appreciate the grace of your posts….

I believe that both ID and evolution should be discussed in schools. Both theories have valid points that should be debated, not shouted down

that the darwiniacs must silence and ridicule those who disagree shows the bankruptcy of their ’science’

right4life on June 18, 2008 at 9:52 PM

To suppose the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

Charles Darwin [an evolutioist]

davidk on June 18, 2008 at 9:53 PM

evolution and christianity are totally incompatible.

evolution says: no god, no sin, no savior, no right, or wrong.

those who try to ‘reconcile’ are just trying to have their cake and eat it too.

right4life on June 18, 2008 at 9:51 PM

Evolution doesn’t say anything about the savior or right vs. wrong. Those Christians may be having and eating their cake, but they are still Christians and, unquestionably, not atheists.

dedalus on June 18, 2008 at 9:55 PM

Nietszche once said that faith is not wanting to know. But it is worse than that, now. These days, faith is wanting NOT to know, and wanting no one else to know, either, if that knowledge causes them problems with their beliefs.

Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 9:42 PM

Physician… heal thyself.

Like I stated earlier, I believe that both should be taught in school and allow the students to form their own conclusions.

In every discussion, it is the evolutionists that want to suppress any discussion of ID, not the other way around. And based on the creationist and anti-Christian slurs thrown around, I believe that they are afraid of upsetting their nice orderly (or is that random?) worldview with the thought that Truth really is out there… and waiting for them with open arms.

dominigan on June 18, 2008 at 9:59 PM

Evolution doesn’t say anything about the savior or right vs. wrong.
dedalus on June 18, 2008 at 9:55 PM

You atheists are always bringing up the “Problem of Evil.”

Where did right and wrong come from? Out of your evolutionary @$$?

davidk on June 18, 2008 at 10:02 PM

many will say in that day Lord, Lord……

right4life on June 18, 2008 at 10:00 PM

Yes. And that is, or should be, a sobering thought.

“It’s a fearful thing to fall into the hands of an angry God.”

davidk on June 18, 2008 at 10:06 PM

Yeah; I gotta warn y’all that Big Bill is a-comin’. And when he gets here, he’s not a-gonna be happy about what you’ve said about him, or the fact that you haven’t been listening to me about what Big Bill wants you to do. But, ifnya do what I say, and regularly hand me part of your money for Big Bill, and say only nice things about him from now on in, I might be able to getcha off the hook with him, and even getcha invited up to his waay kewl and super rad pad, because he’s a friend of mine.

Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 10:07 PM

your precious hairygod darwin was a pliagarist…and his theory is falling apart…deal with it:

Papers are in. MIT will publish the findings in 2009 – the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s publication of the Origin of Species. And despite the fact that organizers are downplaying the Altenberg meeting as a discussion about whether there should be a new theory, it already appears a done deal. Some kind of shift away from the population genetic-centered view of evolution is afoot.

right4life on June 18, 2008 at 10:02 PM

Darwinian Evolution

davidk on June 18, 2008 at 10:13 PM

many will say in that day Lord, Lord……

right4life on June 18, 2008 at 10:00 PM

My guess is the Lord will judge them on whether they lived their life in Christ, whether they were merciful, charitable, pure of heart–not the way they studied history, physics or the life sciences.

dedalus on June 18, 2008 at 10:16 PM

Talk about being dishonest, dissembling and disingenuous:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

It ain’t science; it’s propaganda.

Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 10:18 PM

dedalus on June 18, 2008 at 10:16 PM

Amen.

But that ‘how they study’ statement is too undefined for me. Meaning, if people state that they love God, yet throw out the first 11 chapters of His Book (the Bible), maybe they don’t love God so very much…

Skidd on June 18, 2008 at 10:23 PM

Keep sanding the hull smoother, and the boat cuts ever more smoothly through the water.

Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 10:14 PM

1 Tim 1:19
9 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:
KJV

davidk on June 18, 2008 at 10:24 PM

sine that complexity can be explained via mutation and natural selection over long timelines and many environmental

the big lie. you cannot duplicate this in a lab, you’ll whine you need more time, you cannot see it in the fossil record…its a statement of faith..

which is all evolution has

right4life on June 18, 2008 at 10:26 PM

My guess is the Lord will judge them on whether they lived their life in Christ, whether they were merciful, charitable, pure of heart–not the way they studied history, physics or the life sciences.

dedalus on June 18, 2008 at 10:16 PM

uh ok…you think the Lord would approve of gay marriage, abortion, etc…the agenda of the left and their ‘red letter’ ‘christians’??

seriously how can someone ‘be in Christ’ and support those things? and how can they reconcile the opposing world views of evolution and christianity…you cannot believe both, and you cannot serve 2 masters…

right4life on June 18, 2008 at 10:29 PM

Once upon a time, the belief in Odin was such an unchanging truth, as was the belief in Ahura Mazda (Zoroastrianism), Zeus and Ra. For thousands of years they inhered. But now those gods are either dead, or at death’s door.

These days many have that selfsame belief, but in Yahweh, or Jehovah, or Allah.

And in the future? One thing that history has taught us is that unchanging truths are few and far between - and that includes religious ones.

But I understand your zealous and fanatical fervency; you are fighting for the very life of your chosen deity. History has taught us that when belief in a god dies, the god itself dies; it’s only verifiable life resides within peoples’ minds.

Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 10:32 PM