Video: Who’s up for a two-and-half-hour debate on evolution versus creationism featuring Bill Nye, the Science Guy?

posted at 11:21 am on February 5, 2014 by Allahpundit

Judging by the interest this subject draws in the comments on our site and elsewhere online (more than 500,000 people watched the live feed last night), you guys definitely are, notwithstanding the shining truth of USA Today’s headline. (The futility of debate was acknowledged at the debate itself.) Sample exchange:

Moderator Tom Foreman of CNN had a list of audience-submitted questions directed at either Nye or Ham, with the other given a chance to respond. When asked about what existed before the Big Bang, Nye began his answer with “I don’t know.”

“This is the great mystery—you’ve hit the nail on the head,” he replied passionately. “What was before the Big Bang? This is what drives us, this is what we want to know. Let’s keep looking, let’s keep searching.”

For Ham, the answer is simple. “There’s a book out there that tells us where matter came from,” he explained. “It’s the only thing that makes logical sense.”

Partly because it’s futile, some scientists are irritated with Nye for showing up. He says he did it because creationism is a political fact of life in most of America that won’t go away by ignoring it, but his critics think the debate is the equivalent of teaching both theories in school. Even if the teacher offers no judgment on which is correct, the fact that they’re treated as equally respectable is a win for creationists.

I didn’t have time to watch but NBC has a nice recap — evidently, “observational science” versus “historical science” was a key point for Ken Ham — and Time magazine has a nearly minute-by-minute blow by blow. Ham isn’t just a believer in creationism, he’s the founder of Kentucky’s Creation Museum, where the debate was held. He’s also a young-Earth creationist, which makes some of the exchanges about evidence extra zesty. Three clips for you here, two of them snippets and the third the whole shebang in case you’ve got the time and interest. Enjoy.




Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 8 9 10

You are describing adaptation, and short-term adaptation at that.

It is evolution not adaptation; as defined.

A living thing adapts to its environment via selective transcription of its genome. A bacteria with the gene coding for the enzyme for digesting citrate will express that gene (and thus make the enzyme) when it is in an environment with citrate. That is adaptation.

The ability to digest citrate in a population that didn’t have the ability before, but gained the ability through change in its genetic DNA is EVOLUTION.

Attempting to use supernatural causes to explain natural phenomena is useless as far as any practical application and it is neither necessary or sufficient in understanding God.

Right now stars are forming through gravity and nuclear fusion. Are these stars any less created by God than our own Sun?

Mordaukar on February 6, 2014 at 3:33 PM

Science is limited to the study of life that exists today

That’s not true. Paleontology is science.

It is not valuable in explaining how that life came to be.

Many scientists differ. Why should your opinion be more important than theirs?

That part is pure assumption. Therefor I find the arrogance of the atheistic community to be unwarranted and quite useless.

I don’t know about “pure assumption” but arrogance in any community is to be deplored.

HiHo on February 6, 2014 at 3:36 PM

Vampires and leprechauns, people. Vampires and leprechauns.

Oh, and Bigfoot. Don’t forget to include Bigfoot.

Nessie. Yeti. Yeren. Count Chocula.

Intelligent liberals. Democrats who have a conscience.

A coherent and thoughtful sentence coming out of Joe Biden’s mouth.

The power of faith is just so hilarious.

thejackal on February 6, 2014 at 3:38 PM

Evolution explains and can predict how a novel trait can arrise in a living population

Again, adaptation does not explain speciation. We can observe the former (in a very limited manner), not the latter.

In my experience it is typical that creationists are unable to explain what USE presupposing supernatural intervenion can be put to

To properly put God in perspective and to remind us to be humble in the face of His sovereignty. I’d argue that many scientists could use a cold dose of humbleness and sense of reliance on their Creator. I wouldn’t attempt to use Genesis 1 and 2 to explain the physics of God speaking creation into existence. It’s sufficient to know that He did.

or to make a rational argument against the theory of natural selection without making it an argrument against abiogenesis

Natural selection is logical and can sometimes explain why some traits are favored over others given a specific environment. It has limitations (e.g. unfavorable traits that do not prevent the organism from reproducing and passing along those traits). We still can’t use it to observe speciation. Sorry, not enough data on the time scales evolution requires.

By the way, I would argue that adaptation is far more of a function of genetic recombination due to new traits arising out of reproduction. Mutation is too rare, and natural selection has too many limitations. This in my opinion makes the argument for a young earth far more plausible, as new traits potentially arise with every new generation (and we actually observe this in organisms like bacteria with short generational times)

Evolution cannot explain man’s unique ability to manipulate his own environment and to engage in creative activity (Funny that we share those traits with God and we were made in His image, isn’t it?). If it were a mere case of time (especially in an old-earth scenario where we have only been around for a tiny fraction of it), mutation, and genetic drift, it would be logical to assume that we would not be the only species capable of the level of environmental manipulation and creativity existing on earth today.

Our uniqueness as humans lends itself to what the Bible says, that we are a special creation of His, we were formed in a unique manner apart from all other life, and that we share attributes with our Creator.

TheMightyMonarch on February 6, 2014 at 3:44 PM

TheMightyMonarch on February 6, 2014 at 3:44 PM

A question. Are you a Venture Bros fan????

thejackal on February 6, 2014 at 3:50 PM

A question. Are you a Venture Bros fan????

thejackal on February 6, 2014 at 3:50 PM

Yep, though not so much since Brock was relegated to a side character. :)

TheMightyMonarch on February 6, 2014 at 3:55 PM

Again, adaptation does not explain speciation. We can observe the former (in a very limited manner), not the latter

.

Please do a google search on “observed instances of speciation. You are wrong.

To properly put God in perspective and to remind us to be humble in the face of His sovereignty. I’d argue that many scientists could use a cold dose of humbleness and sense of reliance on their Creator. I wouldn’t attempt to use Genesis 1 and 2 to explain the physics of God speaking creation into existence. It’s sufficient to know that He did.

A lot of scientists would say that nature does not always conform to personal beliefs, no matter how cherished, and humility is important to finding truth, and that religionists are arrogant in their assertion that mere personal conviction and trust is sufficient to establish empirical truth. So maybe you guys can take turns being sanctimonious towards each other.

Natural selection is logical and can sometimes explain why some traits are favored over others given a specific environment. It has limitations (e.g. unfavorable traits that do not prevent the organism from reproducing and passing along those traits). We still can’t use it to observe speciation. Sorry, not enough data on the time scales evolution requires.

There’s that humility thing again.

By the way, I would argue that adaptation is far more of a function of genetic recombination due to new traits arising out of reproduction. Mutation is too rare, and natural selection has too many limitations. This in my opinion makes the argument for a young earth far more plausible, as new traits potentially arise with every new generation (and we actually observe this in organisms like bacteria with short generational times)

You might argue that, but you would be wrong. Recombination can change genetic sequences: it is a source of mutation. Your whole paragraph is incoherent.

Evolution cannot explain man’s unique ability to manipulate his own environment and to engage in creative activity

Argument by assertion devoid of evidence.

(Funny that we share those traits with God and we were made in His image, isn’t it?).

Argument by assertion devoid of evidence.

If it were a mere case of time (especially in an old-earth scenario where we have only been around for a tiny fraction of it), mutation, and genetic drift, it would be logical to assume that we would not be the only species capable of the level of environmental manipulation and creativity existing on earth today.

It might be. But then again, complex traits are predicted to arise rarely, and intelligence is pretty much the most complex biological trait known. So maybe not.

Our uniqueness as humans lends itself to what the Bible says, that we are a special creation of His, we were formed in a unique manner apart from all other life, and that we share attributes with our Creator.

Argument by assertion, devoid of evidence. Up above, you were talking about how humble people need to be??……

HiHo on February 6, 2014 at 3:57 PM

Yep, though not so much since Brock was relegated to a side character. :)

TheMightyMonarch on February 6, 2014 at 3:55 PM

Agreed. +100000000000000

Archer much?

thejackal on February 6, 2014 at 4:01 PM

Evolution cannot explain man’s unique ability to manipulate his own environment and to engage in creative activity

Argument by assertion devoid of evidence.

No evidence that evolution explains the development of intelligence at human levels. We are a unique creation, and I’ve stated the evidence to this.

(Funny that we share those traits with God and we were made in His image, isn’t it?).

Argument by assertion devoid of evidence.

I cite the Bible as evidence.

Our uniqueness as humans lends itself to what the Bible says, that we are a special creation of His, we were formed in a unique manner apart from all other life, and that we share attributes with our Creator.

Argument by assertion, devoid of evidence. Up above, you were talking about how humble people need to be??……

Again, citing the Bible as evidence. Where are you seeing lack of humility? This is God’s work, not mine. And He has no need to be humble (although He chose to humble Himself to the point of death, even death on a cross).

TheMightyMonarch on February 6, 2014 at 4:04 PM

Again, adaptation does not explain speciation. We can observe the former (in a very limited manner), not the latter.

I did not attempt to explain speciation when explaining to you the difference between adaptation (something using what they have differently) and evolution (a change in what they have). Not all evolution involves speciation.

I wouldn’t attempt to use Genesis 1 and 2 to explain the physics of God speaking creation into existence. It’s sufficient to know that He did.

Similarly I wouldn’t attempt to use Genesis 1 and 2 to explain the biology of God speaking living things into existence. It is sufficient for me to know that HE did; while I learn about and explore the natural means that govern how evolution happens.

I would argue that adaptation is far more of a function of genetic recombination due to new traits arising out of reproduction. Mutation is too rare, and natural selection has too many limitations. This in my opinion makes the argument for a young earth far more plausible, as new traits potentially arise with every new generation (and we actually observe this in organisms like bacteria with short generational times)

How does a novel trait arise through genetic recombination not mutation when of the two things “recombining” neither has the novel trait? Mutation is not that rare. Moreover many bacteria have two different genes for the enzyme that will reproduc ther DNA, one will do it with high-fidelity, the other is “error prone DNA polymerase”. This gene is significantly more likely to be expressed when the bacteria is under stress. Thus one of the adaptive mechanisms of bacteria is to INCREASE the rate of mutation every time it reproduces itself asexually.

A bacteria can adapt to a stressful environment by increasing mutation and thus facilitating evolutionary change.

Speciation has been observed in fruit flies. Not that direct observation is necessary for evolution through natural selection of genetic variation to be a useful and predictive model of how two closely related species came to be different species.

Would you say that mice and rats were the same “kind” of animal? How about new world and old world vultures?

Mordaukar on February 6, 2014 at 4:09 PM

No evidence that evolution explains the development of intelligence at human levels. We are a unique creation, and I’ve stated the evidence to this.

Meh. Apes are pretty bright. They lack syntactic language, and we have a better sense of time, but there are lots fossil of hominids with larger cranial capacities than extant apes, and they are genetically very close relatives, so descent with modification from a less intelligent, but already quite sophisticated organism seems to be a reasonably well supported notion. I mean, even Behe admits that the molecular genetic and cytogenetic evidence that we have a common ancestor with chimpanzees is pretty overwhelming. You have to demonstrate that it CAN’T happen. Good luck.

I cite the Bible as evidence

The Bible is simply a text that makes assertions. So like I say, citing assertions as evidence for other assertions isn’t really making an argument from evidence.

Again, citing the Bible as evidence. Where are you seeing lack of humility? This is God’s work, not mine. And He has no need to be humble (although He chose to humble Himself to the point of death, even death on a cross).

The idea that you know the fundamental nature of reality simply because of the emotional attachment you have to assertions in a text is a pretty wild inflation of the importance of your emotional attachments to the text, isn’t it?

HiHo on February 6, 2014 at 4:16 PM

Oh, crap. Another crop of naturalists.

davidk on February 6, 2014 at 4:22 PM

Argument by assertion, devoid of evidence.

HiHo on February 6, 2014 at 3:57 PM

Are you asserting that an “Argument by assertion, devoid of evidence” is invalid?

davidk on February 6, 2014 at 4:27 PM

Oh, crap. Another crop of naturalists.

Mike Behe, arch-naturalist…………

You know, there are lots of religionists who think that their religion is a pretty good guide to telling them how to live, and why they should live that way, who don’t think it is terribly important to know with any certainty the mechanics of how humans came to be, or even when. I’m one of them. But empirical facts and science do exist, and it is important not to misrepresent them.

HiHo on February 6, 2014 at 4:32 PM

Are you asserting that an “Argument by assertion, devoid of evidence” is invalid

No, I’m asserting that such arguments are inadequate to establish scientific fact. For evidence to support that assertion, I suggest you start with Pierre Duhem’s elegant work “The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory”. The last thing he could be accused of is naturalism.

HiHo on February 6, 2014 at 4:38 PM

No, I’m asserting that such arguments are inadequate to establish scientific fact. For evidence to support that assertion, I suggest you start with Pierre Duhem’s elegant work “The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory”. The last thing he could be accused of is naturalism.

HiHo on February 6, 2014 at 4:38 PM

So you are making an argument by assertion. Sounds contradictory to me.

BTW, creationists do not deny speciation (adaption). And much to the consternation of evolutionists, it happens rapidly–as predicted by the Bible.

davidk on February 6, 2014 at 4:45 PM

Evolution cannot explain man’s unique ability to manipulate his own environment and to engage in creative activity (Funny that we share those traits with God and we were made in His image, isn’t it?).
TheMightyMonarch on February 6, 2014 at 3:44 PM

Seems more likely to me that we made god in our image.

yelnats on February 6, 2014 at 4:49 PM

TheMightyMonarch on February 6, 2014 at 3:44 PM

.
Seems more likely to me that we made god in our image.

yelnats on February 6, 2014 at 4:49 PM

.
The “first Adam” wasn’t smart enough out-of-the-box, to make a “God” in his own image.

Our mental capacities have only gone downhill, since.

listens2glenn on February 6, 2014 at 4:55 PM

Oh, crap. Another crop of naturalists.

davidk on February 6, 2014 at 4:22 PM

.
Were you expecting spiritual theists ?

listens2glenn on February 6, 2014 at 4:57 PM

Oh, crap. Another crop of naturalists.

davidk on February 6, 2014 at 4:22 PM

.
Were you expecting spiritual theists ?

listens2glenn on February 6, 2014 at 4:57 PM

Heh.

davidk on February 6, 2014 at 4:59 PM

So you are making an argument by assertion.

I made an assertion, and when asked, provided a citation. Duhem was an historian of science, and he provides appropriate illustrations by reference to historical fact to demonstrate his thesis.

Sounds contradictory to me.

(Shrug) If you don’t want to do the work, that’s fine.

BTW, creationists do not deny speciation (adaption).

They do, however, frequently treat speciation and adaptation as somehow interchangeable like you just did. The two are fundamentally different concepts. Fr evidence, check any intro biology text…..

And much to the consternation of evolutionists, it happens rapidly–as predicted by the Bible.

Oh really? So according to creation scientist Todd Wood, all the non-avian theropods belong to the same holobramin, which gives about 2000 years for the common ancestor of theropods to give rise to both Tyrannosaurus rex (7 tons) and Parvicursor remotus (6 oz) in 200 years? Really? Something like that has been observed? DO tell. Or the equine holobaramin spread, speciation and regional extinction, that’s been observed in a couple thousand years?

No. We have known for an empirical fact that speciation events can be rapid for about a century. It wasn’t until the last 20 years that creationists even acknowledged that speciation EXISTED, and that was only so that they could fit all the “kinds” on to a small enough ark.

HiHo on February 6, 2014 at 5:06 PM

Oh, crap. Another crop of naturalists.

davidk on February 6, 2014 at 4:22 PM

.
Mike Behe, arch-naturalist…………

You know, there are lots of religionists who think that their religion is a pretty good guide to telling them how to live, and why they should live that way, who don’t think it is terribly important to know with any certainty the mechanics of how humans came to be, or even when.

HiHo on February 6, 2014 at 4:32 PM

.
Christianity is a personal, individual relationship with God. It is NOT a bunch of “guidelines” on how we should live life.

The Genesis record explains “the mechanics of how humans came to be”, especially including “when.”
.

But empirical facts and science do exist, and it is important not to misrepresent them.

HiHo on February 6, 2014 at 4:32 PM

.
Well … when are “evolutionists” going to STOP misrepresenting them ?

listens2glenn on February 6, 2014 at 5:06 PM

I made an assertion, and when asked, provided a citation. Duhem was an historian of science, and he provides appropriate illustrations by reference to historical fact to demonstrate his thesis.

From a text written by a man?

No. We have known for an empirical fact that speciation events can be rapid for about a century. It wasn’t until the last 20 years that creationists even acknowledged that speciation EXISTED, and that was only so that they could fit all the “kinds” on to a small enough ark.

HiHo on February 6, 2014 at 5:06 PM

All the while naturalists were denying the Great Flood.

davidk on February 6, 2014 at 5:16 PM

Christianity is a personal, individual relationship with God. It is NOT a bunch of “guidelines” on how we should live life.

Fine with me.

The Genesis record explains “the mechanics of how humans came to be”, especially including “when.”

As long as people don’t try to pass that off as consistent with scientific fact, and as long as people don’t call me a naturalist when I disagree, I don’t mind. That’s their business, not mine.

Well … when are “evolutionists” going to STOP misrepresenting them ?

Everybody should study history and science, and not try to exploit facts for personal agendas. But if people are going to say that Genesis is “scientific”, or that science is compatible with most forms of Biblical literalism, no, that’s untrue, and it is my business, because it affects me in the practice of my work, and it affects the education of my children.

HiHo on February 6, 2014 at 5:20 PM

From a text written by a man?

Duhem illustrates his thesis with actual scientific studies. Not everything is mere assertion.

All the while naturalists were denying the Great Flood.

The Noachian (ie worldwide) flood was generally rejected as an historical about a century before Darwin in Europe (outside of England), and within England generally rejected well prior to the publication of On the Origin. For evidence that this is so, please read “Bursting the Limits of Time” and “Worlds Before Adam” by M. Rudwick.

HiHo on February 6, 2014 at 5:25 PM

No. We have known for an empirical fact that speciation events can be rapid for about a century. It wasn’t until the last 20 years that creationists even acknowledged that speciation EXISTED, and that was only so that they could fit all the “kinds” on to a small enough ark.

HiHo on February 6, 2014 at 5:06 PM

OK.

Evolutionists were surprised and a bit put out because rapid speciation did not fit their general theory of evolution.

But the bottom line is that micro-evolution occurs, as predicted by the Bible.

And macro-evolution does not occur, as predicted by the Bible.

davidk on February 6, 2014 at 5:34 PM

All the while naturalists were denying the Great Flood.

davidk on February 6, 2014 at 5:16 PM

There is no reason for “naturalists” to deny a worldwide flood if there is evidence for it.
There is no reason for secular scientists to deny a 6000 year old Earth if there is evidence for it.
They don’t have a book that says that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. They can accept any age that the evidence points to. It’s not like they choose an old age to disprove the Bible.

yelnats on February 6, 2014 at 5:34 PM

All the while naturalists were denying the Great Flood.

The Noachian (ie worldwide) flood was generally rejected as an historical about a century before Darwin in Europe (outside of England), and within England generally rejected well prior to the publication of On the Origin. For evidence that this is so, please read “Bursting the Limits of Time” and “Worlds Before Adam” by M. Rudwick.

HiHo on February 6, 2014 at 5:25 PM

So all the while naturalists denied the great flood.

davidk on February 6, 2014 at 5:37 PM

Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.

D.M.S. Watson, Adaptation, Nature 124:233, 1929

davidk on February 6, 2014 at 5:40 PM

At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don’t usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals, they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position.

Boyce Rensberger, How the World Works (NY: William Morrow 1986), p. 17–18.

davidk on February 6, 2014 at 5:41 PM

Evolutionists were surprised and a bit put out because rapid speciation did not fit their general theory of evolution.

Well, no, not really. Evolutionists were a bit surprised by how fact speciation could occur because they thought that allopatry followed by local adaptation was the most effective way of preventing gene flow, and the most plausible among vertebrates. Turns out that isn’t so. The thing creationists don’t understand is that the fact of common descent with modification has been pretty much accepted in biology for about 150 years and the questions have all been on how it occurs, and nothing that has turned up even remotely refutes the idea. Creationism as a scientific theory is deader than two week old road kill.

But the bottom line is that micro-evolution occurs, as predicted by the Bible.

And macro-evolution does not occur, as predicted by the Bible.

The Bible doesn’t say diddly squat about either.

HiHo on February 6, 2014 at 5:43 PM

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Richard Lewontin, Billions and Billions of Demons, The New York Review, 9 January 1997, p. 31.

davidk on February 6, 2014 at 5:43 PM

Science is fundamentally a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule:

Rule #1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural.

R.E. Dickerson, J. Molecular Evolution 34:277, 1992.

davidk on February 6, 2014 at 5:50 PM

davidk, do any of your well mined quotes explain why birds are more genetically similar to lizards than bats?

Just curious.

HiHo on February 6, 2014 at 5:52 PM

But the bottom line is that micro-evolution occurs, as predicted by the Bible.

And macro-evolution does not occur, as predicted by the Bible.

The Bible doesn’t say diddly squat about either.

HiHo on February 6, 2014 at 5:43 PM

You need to read something more in depth than Guideposts.

The Bible clearly states that kind produces kind.

The “Noachian” flood shows that due to limited space on Noah’s ark, only representative kinds could fit. And then in a short time, much, much shorter than evolutionists would have predicted based on their naturalistic presuppositions, the kinds blossomed (via rapid speciation) into the beautiful varieties of plants and animals we see today.

davidk on February 6, 2014 at 5:58 PM

davidk, do any of your well mined quotes explain why birds are more genetically similar to lizards than bats?

Just curious.

HiHo on February 6, 2014 at 5:52 PM

No, of course not. They just reveal the biases many evolutionists.

davidk on February 6, 2014 at 5:58 PM

I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism … .

It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous, painful struggle replete with much sorrow and many tears, but humanism will emerge triumphant. It must if the family of humankind is to survive.

J. Dunphy, A Religion for a New Age, The Humanist, Jan.–Feb. 1983, 23, 26.

davidk on February 6, 2014 at 6:01 PM

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents, the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists’ and astronomers’ as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts, i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents.

C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), p. 52–53.

davidk on February 6, 2014 at 6:07 PM

The “Noachian” flood shows that due to limited space on Noah’s ark, only representative kinds could fit. And then in a short time, much, much shorter than evolutionists would have predicted based on their naturalistic presuppositions, the kinds blossomed (via rapid speciation) into the beautiful varieties of plants and animals we see today.

davidk on February 6, 2014 at 5:58 PM

Or maybe all species were on the ark, but God supernaturally shrunk them to a millionth of their natural size. Or maybe the ark was bigger on the inside than the outside, like the TARDIS.
I don’t see why creationists insist on coming up with a naturalistic explanation for a supernatural event.

yelnats on February 6, 2014 at 6:08 PM

You need to read something more in depth than Guideposts.

The Bible clearly states that kind produces kind.

It doesn’t define kind. It doesn’t talk about the change in gene frequency in populations, and it doesn’t even use the word species. It nowhere says that no further kinds emerged after creation. You are trying to shoehorn modern biology into a language that didn’t even consistently distinguish between birds, bats and flying bugs.

The “Noachian” flood shows that due to limited space on Noah’s ark, only representative kinds could fit. And then in a short time, much, much shorter than evolutionists would have predicted based on their naturalistic presuppositions, the kinds blossomed (via rapid speciation) into the beautiful varieties of plants and animals we see today.

Sorry, even the most rapid evolution observed won’t get naturally occurring species ranging from 6 oz to 7 tons from a common ancestor in 2000 years. I mean, really. Perspective here.

HiHo on February 6, 2014 at 6:08 PM

No, of course not. They just reveal the biases many evolutionists.

Try reading some actual history and philosophy of science, and not just the sound bites. Its interesting.

HiHo on February 6, 2014 at 6:12 PM

The Genesis record explains “the mechanics of how humans came to be”, especially including “when.”

listens2glenn on February 6, 2014 at 5:06 PM

.
As long as people don’t try to pass that off as consistent with scientific fact, and as long as people don’t call me a naturalist when I disagree, I don’t mind. That’s their business, not mine.

HiHo on February 6, 2014 at 5:20 PM

.
There is no way either one of us is going to change the others mind on any of this. You’re not going to stop saying “As long as people don’t try to pass that off as consistent with scientific fact”, and I’m not going to stop saying “it is consistent with scientific fact”.
.

Well … when are “evolutionists” going to STOP misrepresenting them ?

listens2glenn on February 6, 2014 at 5:06 PM

.
Everybody should study history and science, and not try to exploit facts for personal agendas. But if people are going to say that Genesis is “scientific”, or that science is compatible with most forms of Biblical literalism, no, that’s untrue, and it is my business, because it affects me in the practice of my work, and it affects the education of my children.

HiHo on February 6, 2014 at 5:20 PM

.
Uhhh . . . . . . . almost “dittos” ?

I mean, my wording would obviously be different to some degree :

Everybody should study history and science, and not try to exploit facts for personal agendas. But if people are going to say that Genesis is “NOT scientific”, or that science is incompatible with most forms of Biblical literalism, no, that’s untrue, and it is my business, because it affects me in the practice of my work, and it affects the education of my children, and grandchildren.

.
I’m really not trying to be “in-your-face” about this, but you are as much as saying to me; “how dare you say that the Genesis record is real science”, and I’m reciprocating with “how dare you say it’s NOT”.

listens2glenn on February 6, 2014 at 6:14 PM

Or maybe all species were on the ark, but God supernaturally shrunk them to a millionth of their natural size. Or maybe the ark was bigger on the inside than the outside, like the TARDIS.
I don’t see why creationists insist on coming up with a naturalistic explanation for a supernatural event

It is by far he most bizarre aspect of creationism that they need to make the ark somehow plausible. The heat released by all that water falling out of the sky alone would parboil Noah and everyone in the boat. BUT WE HAVE TO EXPLAIN HOW THE ANIMALS WERE FED!!! LOL.

HiHo on February 6, 2014 at 6:20 PM

BWAAAHHHAAAHHHAAA. The crazy young earthers are out in full force. Don’t you all know animals talk, a man lived in a whale, people used to live to be 1000 years old, dead folks were reanimated, and the earth is only 6,000 years old. Why is the christian god, who was supposed to show back up in just a few years, still MIA 2000+ years later, and why did he have to rape his own mother? Christians are as embarrassing as OBamabots…Both are bat $hit crazy! Good luck winning the next presidential election losers…And there goes the SC too.

Bandit13 on February 6, 2014 at 6:23 PM

davidk, do any of your well mined quotes explain why birds are more genetically similar to lizards than bats?

Just curious.

HiHo on February 6, 2014 at 5:52 PM
.

No, of course not. They just reveal the biases many evolutionists.

davidk on February 6, 2014 at 5:58 PM

.
Try reading some actual history and philosophy of science, and not just the sound bites. Its interesting.

HiHo on February 6, 2014 at 6:12 PM

.
I believe the Bible is the “final say”, and I trust Dr Carl Baugh and Dr Kent Hovind before I would any evolution scientists. You don’t, I get it … I don’t know what else to say.

listens2glenn on February 6, 2014 at 6:28 PM

There is no way either one of us is going to change the others mind on any of this. You’re not going to stop saying “As long as people don’t try to pass that off as consistent with scientific fact”, and I’m not going to stop saying “it is consistent with scientific fact”.

I agree with that. The advantage I have is, of course, that scientists in their appropriate fields define what is scientific fact and what is not, and with very few exceptions they agree with me: the world is old, descent with modification happened and we share a common, ape like ancestor with chimpanzees, and Genesis isn’t science.

I can’t change your mind. I don’t expect to.

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

HiHo on February 6, 2014 at 6:28 PM

A question. Are you a Venture Bros fan????

thejackal on February 6, 2014 at 3:50 PM

Yep, though not so much since Brock was relegated to a side character. :)

TheMightyMonarch on February 6, 2014 at 3:55 PM

OMFG! It’s Christmas and February at the same time!!!

yORKES!!!

thejackal on February 6, 2014 at 6:30 PM

The advantage I have is, of course, that scientists in their appropriate fields define what is scientific fact and what is not, and with very few exceptions they agree with me: the world is old, descent with modification happened and we share a common, ape like ancestor with chimpanzees, and Genesis isn’t science.

HiHo on February 6, 2014 at 6:28 PM

.
Tell it to God, when you meet him.

That event is guaranteed.
.

I can’t change your mind. I don’t expect to.

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

HiHo on February 6, 2014 at 6:28 PM

.
Well … OK, I guess that’s the one point of “agreement”

listens2glenn on February 6, 2014 at 6:36 PM

Tell it to God, when you meet him.

I rather think I’ll have a few more pressing issues, though I could be wrong.

That event is guaranteed.

I agree.

Well … OK, I guess that’s the one point of “agreement

Two, now.

HiHo on February 6, 2014 at 6:41 PM

You need to read something more in depth than Guideposts.

The Bible clearly states that kind produces kind.

It doesn’t define kind. It doesn’t talk about the change in gene frequency in populations, and it doesn’t even use the word species. It nowhere says that no further kinds emerged after creation. You are trying to shoehorn modern biology into a language that didn’t even consistently distinguish between birds, bats and flying bugs.

The “Noachian” flood shows that due to limited space on Noah’s ark, only representative kinds could fit. And then in a short time, much, much shorter than evolutionists would have predicted based on their naturalistic presuppositions, the kinds blossomed (via rapid speciation) into the beautiful varieties of plants and animals we see today.

Sorry, even the most rapid evolution observed won’t get naturally occurring species ranging from 6 oz to 7 tons from a common ancestor in 2000 years. I mean, really. Perspective here.

HiHo on February 6, 2014 at 6:08 PM

Well, the Bible doesn’t define “kind” or talk about gene frequency because IT IS NOT A SCIENCE BOOK. It just assumes their existence and refers to them.

It does not say that new kinds emerged because they didn’t. A bit of question begging there.

You say the Bible doesn’t consistently distinguish between birds, bats, and and flying bugs because you haven’t studied the Bible in depth. It is a common mistake because translators often take on the role of interpreter.

Evolutionists were surprised at the speed of wing size change in the fruit fly (Walker, M., Flying out of control—alien species can evolve at an alarming rate, New Scientist 165[2222]:15, 2000 [Quote mining]). Could it be that more dramatic changes may be shown to have happen in shorter periods than previously thought. Don’t close your mind.

davidk on February 6, 2014 at 6:43 PM

Well, the Bible doesn’t define “kind” or talk about gene frequency because IT IS NOT A SCIENCE BOOK. It just assumes their existence and refers to them.

Right!

It does not say that new kinds emerged because they didn’t. A bit of question begging there.

I agree, that is question begging. That’s my point.

You say the Bible doesn’t consistently distinguish between birds, bats, and and flying bugs because you haven’t studied the Bible in depth. It is a common mistake because translators often take on the role of interpreter.

No, I actually have. I’ve studied the Hebrew. There is a word for bat, but the category of winged thing subsumes bird, bat and bug. They are not biologically defined, and it isn’t important because (as you say) the Bible isn’t a science text. So its important to understand that it doesn’t actually refer to modern biological concepts like micro and macro evolution. At all.

Evolutionists were surprised at the speed of wing size change in the fruit fly (Walker, M., Flying out of control—alien species can evolve at an alarming rate, New Scientist 165[2222]:15, 2000 [Quote mining]). Could it be that more dramatic changes may be shown to have happen in shorter periods than previously thought. Don’t close your mind.

Sure. I won’t close my mind, but I won’t say that what the Bible predicts as per creation science is supported with regards to species divergence rates. It isn’t. Nothing so far observed will get you from a half pound lizard to to a Tyrannosaur in 2000 years.

HiHo on February 6, 2014 at 6:52 PM

I agree with that. The advantage I have is, of course, that scientists in their appropriate fields define what is scientific fact and what is not, and with very few exceptions they agree with me: the world is old, descent with modification happened and we share a common, ape like ancestor with chimpanzees, and Genesis isn’t science.

I can’t change your mind. I don’t expect to.

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

HiHo on February 6, 2014 at 6:28 PM

Modern science was built upon a Biblical worldview. HiHo, Steve.

davidk on February 6, 2014 at 6:53 PM

I didn’t watch the debate, but heard it said that a ‘got=cha’ point that Nye made was that the plants couldn’t survive being under water so long.
The undigestible seeds of those plants may have been preserved in the stomachs of the birds and animals, and then excreted.
Discuss.

Mimzey on February 6, 2014 at 7:02 PM

Tell it to God, when you meet him.

That event is guaranteed.

listens2glenn on February 6, 2014 at 6:36 PM

.
I agree.

HiHo on February 6, 2014 at 6:41 PM

.
Wait a minute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
. . . . . something here, doesn’t seem quite right . . . . . . . .
.
.
Did I miss something ? … I do occasionally.

listens2glenn on February 6, 2014 at 7:06 PM

I didn’t watch the debate, but heard it said that a ‘got=cha’ point that Nye made was that the plants couldn’t survive being under water so long.
The undigestible seeds of those plants may have been preserved in the stomachs of the birds and animals, and then excreted.
Discuss.

Mimzey on February 6, 2014 at 7:02 PM

.
Bill Nye should have debated Kent Hovind or Carl Baugh.
.
Dr Hovind used to have a half-million dollars in escrow, for any evolutionist that would win a debate with him.

I don’t know if he still does, or not.

listens2glenn on February 6, 2014 at 7:10 PM

I didn’t watch the debate, but heard it said that a ‘got=cha’ point that Nye made was that the plants couldn’t survive being under water so long.
The undigestible seeds of those plants may have been preserved in the stomachs of the birds and animals, and then excreted.
Discuss.

Mimzey on February 6, 2014 at 7:02 PM

Or god just supernaturally protected them.
Again, why the need for a naturalistic explanation of a supernatural event?

Nye also pointed out that there are plants that are older than the supposed date of the flood.

What did the animals eat if most plants were killed by the flood? What did the meat-eaters eat?

yelnats on February 6, 2014 at 7:17 PM

It does not say that new kinds emerged because they didn’t. A bit of question begging there.

I agree, that is question begging. That’s my point.

Because I recognize that no macro-evolution has occurred while recognizing that the Bible does not refer to macro-evolution, I’m engaging in circular reasoning?

The fact that the Bible does not use “genus” or “species” does not take away from its support for science.. It is using a system of classification (adopted by many creationists) that more correctly describes the divisions of lifeforms. I am sure you know that there are many different types of plant and animal classification.

[The Bible] doesn’t define kind. It doesn’t talk about the change in gene frequency in populations, and it doesn’t even use the word species. It nowhere says that no further kinds emerged after creation. You are trying to shoehorn modern biology into a language that didn’t even consistently distinguish between birds, bats and flying bugs

This is question begging. Because you assume that macro-evolution has occurred; that the Bible does not mention it; and that the Bible uses a different classification method,[they agree with me: the world is old, descent with modification happened and we share a common, ape like ancestor with chimpanzees, and Genesis isn’t science] the Bible does not speak accurately on science.

davidk on February 6, 2014 at 7:19 PM

Did I miss something ? … I do occasionally.

listens2glenn on February 6, 2014 at 7:06 PM

He hasn’t stated it clearly, but I think he must be a theistic evolutionist.

And oxymoron.

davidk on February 6, 2014 at 7:22 PM

yelnats on February 6, 2014 at 7:17 PM

Noah took 7 of every clean animal. There was a food source, at least for a while.

Rose on February 6, 2014 at 7:33 PM

listens2glenn on February 6, 2014 at 7:06 PM

.
He hasn’t stated it clearly, but I think he must be a theistic evolutionist.

And oxymoron.

davidk on February 6, 2014 at 7:22 PM

.
“Straddling the fence”, eh ?

That would explain that one comment.

listens2glenn on February 6, 2014 at 7:38 PM

yelnats on February 6, 2014 at 7:17 PM

.
Noah took 7 of every clean animal. There was a food source, at least for a while.

Rose on February 6, 2014 at 7:33 PM

.
I don’t believe mankind partook of a ‘carnivorous’ diet, until after they left the Ark. [Gen 9:1-5]

My take, anyway.

listens2glenn on February 6, 2014 at 7:45 PM

For the meat eating animals. Or did they not eat meat either?

Rose on February 6, 2014 at 7:47 PM

Not sarcasm, just a question.

Rose on February 6, 2014 at 7:47 PM

Ummm. From the website that HiHo referenced:

NCSE provides information and advice as the premier institution dedicated to keeping evolution and climate change in the science classroom and to keeping creationism and climate change denial out.

Science!!!!

davidk on February 6, 2014 at 7:49 PM

For the meat eating animals. Or did they not eat meat either?

Rose on February 6, 2014 at 7:47 PM

http://creation.com/feeding-carnivores-on-the-ark-and-refuting-an-accusation-of-closet-scientism

davidk on February 6, 2014 at 7:51 PM

I’ve always assumed that the reason he took 7 of the clean animals was for a food source and to insure an expedited continuing of that food source after the flood. I’m not dogmatic about that but it seems logical.

Rose on February 6, 2014 at 7:56 PM

Otherwise, why the distinction between clean and unclean.

Rose on February 6, 2014 at 7:57 PM

I didn’t watch the debate, but heard it said that a ‘got=cha’ point that Nye made was that the plants couldn’t survive being under water so long.
The undigestible seeds of those plants may have been preserved in the stomachs of the birds and animals, and then excreted.
Discuss.

Mimzey on February 6, 2014 at 7:02 PM

Some seeds remain viable for a long time. Here some examples: http://dirthappy.blogspot.com/2010/02/seed-viability-table.html

davidk on February 6, 2014 at 7:59 PM

I’ve always assumed that the reason he took 7 of the clean animals was for a food source and to insure an expedited continuing of that food source after the flood. I’m not dogmatic about that but it seems logical.

Rose on February 6, 2014 at 7:56 PM

Noah used some of the clean animals for sacrifices to God after the water had receded.

davidk on February 6, 2014 at 8:01 PM

Why do creationists reject any supernatural action that isn’t directly mentioned in the Bible? Why do they default to searching for a naturalistic explanation when a supernatural explanation could more easily explain something?

yelnats on February 6, 2014 at 8:03 PM

But not all.

Rose on February 6, 2014 at 8:03 PM

But not all were used for sacrifices.

Rose on February 6, 2014 at 8:04 PM

yelnats on February 6, 2014 at 8:03 PM

God chose to save his creation instead of recreating it. He used a natural means to do so (an ark). It’s reasonable to look for other natural ways that he used.

Rose on February 6, 2014 at 8:06 PM

Why do creationists reject any supernatural action that isn’t directly mentioned in the Bible? Why do they default to searching for a naturalistic explanation when a supernatural explanation could more easily explain something?

yelnats on February 6, 2014 at 8:03 PM

I’ve often wondered about that.

I chuckle at Christians when they point to (alleged) natural solutions to supernatural events. Like the missing day thing. “Scientists discovered … .”

davidk on February 6, 2014 at 8:13 PM

yelnats on February 6, 2014 at 8:03 PM

God chose to save his creation instead of recreating it. He used a natural means to do so (an ark). It’s reasonable to look for other natural ways that he used.

Rose on February 6, 2014 at 8:06 PM

That, too, Rose. Like walking on water. Maybe there is a natural explanation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe3St1GgoHQ “You have to believe you can do this thing.”

One (false) accusation hurled at creationists is that believing in the Bible stifles research. For me, it whets the appetite for more learning. But if an event is clearly presented as miraculous, then trying to find a natural cause is futile.

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

davidk on February 6, 2014 at 8:23 PM

I don’t understand your attitude. I believe in all the miracles. I have experienced a miracle of healing. I was talking specifically about the ark story. I was talking about feeding the animals and people. That’s all I was referring to.

Rose on February 6, 2014 at 8:28 PM

“Understand that I am bringing a flood—floodwaters on the earth to destroy every creature under heaven with the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will die. But I will establish My covenant with you, and you will enter the ark with your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives. You are also to bring into the ark two of all the living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of everything—from the birds according to their kinds, from the livestock according to their kinds, and from the animals that crawl on the ground according to their kinds—will come to you so that you can keep them alive. Take with you every kind of food that is eaten; gather it as food for you and for them.” And Noah did this. He did everything that God had commanded him.

Genesis 6:17f.

davidk on February 6, 2014 at 8:29 PM

I don’t understand your attitude. I believe in all the miracles. I have experienced a miracle of healing. I was talking specifically about the ark story. I was talking about feeding the animals and people. That’s all I was referring to.

Rose on February 6, 2014 at 8:28 PM

My apologies, Rose. I wasn’t knowingly dissin’ you. I’m sorry.

davidk on February 6, 2014 at 8:45 PM

Why do creationists reject any supernatural action that isn’t directly mentioned in the Bible? Why do they default to searching for a naturalistic explanation when a supernatural explanation could more easily explain something?

yelnats on February 6, 2014 at 8:03 PM

A couple of reasons IMO:

1. Rationalism and Skepticism rule the culture. While it is good to be rational and occasionally skeptical, the extreme end of this is that RationalISM leads to the placing of human reason above God, and SkepticISM leads to the rejection of absolute truth (i.e. “nothing is knowable”, which is a self-contradicting statement).

2. While I consider myself a cautious cessationist when it comes to certain gifts of the Spirit, the Christian should be careful to make dogmatic statements that God certainly does not intervene at times. Some gifts were apostolic in nature and ended after they died, other gifts (discernment, preaching, service to others) have certainly continued. Let’s also not forget that healing comes in the form of God granting ability to people in the healthcare industry to cure. I don’t see much difference between a supernatural healing and medical healing, in that neither are possible without God.

That being said, every time God saves someone I consider that a supernatural miracle. We are dead in our trespasses and sins, and salvation is entirely a work of God. We have no part in it (yes, I am a very strict Monergist).

Unfortunately there is such a cacophony of false teachings, false gifts, and outright heresies surrounding Spiritual Gifts, that is is nearly impossible to discern the real miracles from the hucksters.

TheMightyMonarch on February 7, 2014 at 1:42 PM

Bill Nye is an AGW fraud. I wouldn’t waste the effort of turning my head to spit in his direction.

earlgrey on February 7, 2014 at 1:44 PM

Unfortunately there is such a cacophony of false teachings, false gifts, and outright heresies surrounding Spiritual Gifts, that is is nearly impossible to discern the real miracles from the hucksters.

TheMightyMonarch on February 7, 2014 at 1:42 PM

.
Miracles from God are for genuine, practical purposes of saving, healing, or otherwise helping people who genuinely need help.

Satanic “miracles” are pure sensationalism, and NEVER produce or provide genuine help.

The operative word in all of that is “genuine“.
But not everyone sees or defines “genuine” the same way, unfortunately.

listens2glenn on February 7, 2014 at 2:10 PM

Miracles from God are for genuine, practical purposes of saving, healing, or otherwise helping people who genuinely need help.

I don’t quite agree. Miracles are to the ultimate purpose of Soli Deo Gloria. Christians are not guaranteed a healthy or easy life. Just look to our brothers and sisters that got turned into tiki torches for Nero’s garden parties, or our bretheren in Asia and the Middle East today undergoing real persecution under Islamic rule.

The operative word in all of that is “genuine“.
But not everyone sees or defines “genuine” the same way, unfortunately.

I think it’s safe to assume that every so-called “healing” from Benny Hinn is fraudulent at best, satanic at worst. Especially considering he’s a dyed-in-the-wool Word of Faith heretic. The first clue of any false healer is the fact that they aren’t spending every waking hour in childrens’ hospitals instead of in front of a paying audience.

I just don’t hear of a lot of genuine supernatural healing. Not to say that it doesn’t exist, it just appears to be rare and largely unverifiable. I also happen to be with the cessationist camp when we say that some of the more unusual spiritual gifts (speaking in tongues, healing, etc) served a specific apostolic purpose, namely to establish the church. Once the Apostles passed away their specific gifts largely appeared to as well. Today I would consider the dominant Spiritual gifts to include discernment, preaching, and teaching. Very important, especially here in America where Prosperity Gospel and the post-modern Emergent movements dominate.

TheMightyMonarch on February 7, 2014 at 2:45 PM

Bill Nye is an AGW fraud. I wouldn’t waste the effort of turning my head to spit in his direction.

earlgrey on February 7, 2014 at 1:44 PM

Unfortunately there is such a cacophon

Ditto that.

I’m an atheist, and I love his comedy and despise his “science.”

Earth. This.

thejackal on February 7, 2014 at 2:54 PM

I wasn’t referring to “gifts of the Spirit.” I’m talking about the idea that the only thing God did in Noah’s story was to provide him with instructions and provide the water, but everything else about the story can be explained by purely naturalistic means.
Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis website has a “paper” entitled “An Initial Estimate toward Identifying and Numbering the Ark Turtle and Crocodile Kinds.” I find that completely bizarre.

yelnats on February 7, 2014 at 5:25 PM

Sorry, I wasn’t to respond before this thread link disappeared from the main page. Had an urgent ‘family matter’ crop up, and couldn’t get back, till now.
.

Miracles from God are for genuine, practical purposes of saving, healing, or otherwise helping people who genuinely need help.

listens2glenn on February 7, 2014 at 2:10 PM

.
I don’t quite agree. Miracles are to the ultimate purpose of Soli Deo Gloria.
Christians are not guaranteed a healthy or easy life. Just look to our brothers and sisters that got turned into tiki torches for Nero’s garden parties, or our bretheren in Asia and the Middle East today undergoing real persecution under Islamic rule.

TheMightyMonarch on February 7, 2014 at 2:45 PM

.
I’m not able to separate “Soli Deo Gloria” (“For the Glory of God Alone”) from “genuine, practical purpose miracles of saving, healing, or otherwise helping people.”
I’m also not unaware of what befell many of the early Church members (including some of the Apostles, never mind the Old Testament prophets and saints ) who suffered horrific deaths.

listens2glenn on February 8, 2014 at 12:18 AM

Satanic “miracles” are pure sensationalism, and NEVER produce or provide genuine help.

The operative word in all of that is “genuine“.
But not everyone sees or defines “genuine” the same way, unfortunately.

listens2glenn on February 7, 2014 at 2:10 PM

.
I think it’s safe to assume that every so-called “healing” from Benny Hinn is fraudulent at best, satanic at worst. Especially considering he’s a dyed-in-the-wool Word of Faith heretic.

TheMightyMonarch on February 7, 2014 at 2:45 PM

.
I wouldn’t ‘assume’ anything, because I don’t know Benny Hinn any better than I know you. I can’t possibly conclude that “you’re right and he’s wrong”, “he’s right and you’re wrong”, or “truth somewhere in the middle” ….. So I’m not going to pretend to.
But the reply by Jesus to the accusation of performing miracles by Satan [Matt 12:22-30, Mark 3:20-27, Luke 11:14-23] and the counsel of Gamaliel [Acts 5:33-39] come to mind, when accusations of “Charlatan” and/or “Heretic” start coming at persons claiming to be ministering “in the name of Jesus”.
God honored His word through the mouth of a jackass, once (that we know of). There have probably been a few “jackasses” since, blessed with the same thing.
.
B U T . . . what in the blessed HANG is a “dyed-in-the-wool Word of Faith heretic“?
Is “Word Of Faith” some new denomination of Christianity, I’m unaware of ?

listens2glenn on February 8, 2014 at 12:24 AM

The first clue of any false healer is the fact that they aren’t spending every waking hour in childrens’ hospitals instead of in front of a paying audience.

TheMightyMonarch on February 7, 2014 at 2:45 PM

.
You can’t make that judgement. Not all persons called into any type (“gifted area”) of Christian ministry are going to be led to do what Mother Theresa did.
But still … thank God for Mother Theresa, her ministry, and all those following in her footsteps.
.

I just don’t hear of a lot of genuine supernatural healing. Not to say that it doesn’t exist, it just appears to be rare and largely unverifiable.

TheMightyMonarch on February 7, 2014 at 2:45 PM

.
How, or by what means, are you (we) expecting, or supposed to be hearing of them ?
The profession of Journalism isn’t going out of it’s way to promote the positive actions of God, in our everyday lives (but they did do a decent job of reporting about the Priest who ministered in a miraculous way, to a badly injured woman, at an accident scene).
You’ve already stated your doubt about the validity of Benny Hinn’s ministry (let me repeat: you may be right. I can’t say).
What other ministries that have “claims of miraculous events occurring” do you believe to be operating outside of the “will of God”?
If you disagree with all present-day ministries, about whom miraculous events are reported to occur, what do you have left ?

listens2glenn on February 8, 2014 at 1:36 AM

I also happen to be with the cessationist camp when we say that some of the more unusual spiritual gifts (speaking in tongues, healing, etc) served a specific apostolic purpose, namely to establish the church. Once the Apostles passed away their specific gifts largely appeared to as well.

TheMightyMonarch on February 7, 2014 at 2:45 PM

.
You have arrived at a definitive point of disagreement with me, on that issue.
I believe everything (and I really do mean “everything”) mentioned in I Corinthians 12 is just as legitimate, and relevant to today, as it was when Paul wrote that letter.
If you disagree … fine … our personal, individual relationships with Jesus, and the Heavenly Father God, do not depend on our believing in the present-day validity of those gifts.
I do, however, believe that the ability to successfully minister to other persons we come across in our everyday walk-of-life, may be impeded, in the absence of those spiritual gifts working through us. BUT . . . . . that does NOT mean we can’t do any ministry without them, either.
.

Today I would consider the dominant Spiritual gifts to include discernment, preaching, and teaching. Very important, especially here in America where Prosperity Gospel and the post-modern Emergent movements dominate.

TheMightyMonarch on February 7, 2014 at 2:45 PM

.
You and I would probably disagree over the “Prosperity Gospel”, which I believe has been ‘distorted’ by persons, both for, and against it.
I prefer to think of it (but I’m not regularly having conversations with people about it) as the “anti-poverty” message. I say “message”, because it’s only a small part of the whole Gospel of Jesus Christ. But if you don’t believe it has validity in the eyes of God, then avoid it. Warn others against it.
Not believing in it doesn’t make you less “saved”, when you die.
.
As for the manifestation of “spiritual gifts”, Preaching, and Teaching are the most ‘visible’ gifts within today’s Church, in America.
But not everyone who actively participates in “preaching” and/or “teaching”, actually has the “gift” from the Holy Spirit, to do so, either.
.
The following is an opinion from me, and has no “thus saith the Lord” implication. I believe the gift of “Discerning of Spirits” has been the most “misused” or “abused” gift, by Christians … on … both … sides … of the debate over the validity in this present-day, of all of the gifts listed in I Cor 12.

But, as I said, that’s only my opinion, based on my own experiences.
.
.
But, the most important thing I believe we should be in agreement over, is these three words:

. . . . . Jesus Is Lord . . . . .

They are the MOST important words, in the English language.
Those claiming to be Christian believers can disagree with me on EVERYTHING . . . . . except those three words.

If anyone claiming to be a Christian believer disagrees with the statement, behind those three words, then what is their so-called “Christianity” based on ?

listens2glenn on February 8, 2014 at 2:30 AM

Nearly 6 years ago, the following post set a record for number of comments on a HotAir post….

Movie Review: Expelled
posted at 3:00 pm on April 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/18/movie-review-expelled/comment-page-1/#comments

24 pages of comments, and a lot of the topics discussed in this comments to this current post can be found discussed in comments on that 2008 post.

ITguy on February 5, 2014 at 11:56 PM

Record number of pages Somebody wanna show It Guy the Gulch?

Lanceman on February 6, 2014 at 8:23 AM

It set a record at that time (April 2008).

I never said that that record wasn’t broken later. I don’t know what the current record is, but I know that 24 pages was a record when that post was published in April 2008.

ITguy on February 8, 2014 at 10:32 AM

ITguy on February 5, 2014 at 11:56 PM
.

Lanceman on February 6, 2014 at 8:23 AM

.
ITguy on February 8, 2014 at 10:32 AM

.
Two years (approx) before I registered.

But I was a reader/follower of Hotair, and I recognize some of those names, who haven’t appeared in a while.

listens2glenn on February 8, 2014 at 3:14 PM

Two years (approx) before I registered.

But I was a reader/follower of Hotair, and I recognize some of those names, who haven’t appeared in a while.

listens2glenn on February 8, 2014 at 3:14 PM

Check out this comment from that post…

This is not “scientific”, but is an “observation” I’d like to share. I’ve tried to keep a running log of unique user names who have commented on this thread, and I’ve tried to put them in one of three categories. I may have missed a few, but here it goes…

Anti-ID Evolutionists (46):

lorien1973
crr6
Squid Shark
Ars Moriendi
ninjapirate
Jimmy the Dhimmi
Enrique
funky chicken
Big S
muyoso
deewhybee
Roger Waters
catmman
hicsuget
exception
Viscount_Bolingbroke
libertytexan
Kaptain Amerika
uptight
Nonfactor
e-pirate
ronsfi
dedalus
canopfor
Tzetzes
Byron
gator70
RightOFLeft
Mark Jaquith
dcpolwarth
Hening
profitsbeard
Buddahpundit
MrLynn
triple
Watcher
Rod
HeIsSailing
beefytee
dorkafork
JFS61
Lurker1970
RoPa4life
The Buzz
Krydor
Eiconoclast

Biblical Creationists (97):

fossten
db
Dr.Cwac.Cwac
Maxx
wise_man
williars
Scribbler
babynurse1
Hening
saltydogg14
D0WNT0WN
Zaire67
Riposte
jp
terryannonline
jgapinoy
MechEng5by5
locomotivebreath1901
Sabot
VolMagic
CliffHanger
Esthier
Skywise
corona
Wise Golden
inviolet
wytammic
Frank T.J Mackey
Lunkinator
Think_b4_speaking
SaintOlaf
AverageJoe
kirkill
maynila
CyberCipher
infidel2
JetBoy
shick
Fatal
ConstantSorrow
NTWR
JellyToast
TheCulturalist
Theworldisnotenough
canopfor
VolMagic
jack_in_the_box
RushBaby
Johan Klaus
shooter
Weight of Glory
labrat
fourstringfuror
Cold Steel
PrettyD_Vicious
Skidd
right2bright
Simon
AZ_Redneck
Jdkchem
Dilophos
theregoestheneighborhood
DannoJyd
splink
Zorro
petefrt
DaveC
Farmer62
davenp35
percysunshine
Rhodeymark
Ian
shibumiglass
Rosmerta
Corsair
apacalyps
RMC1618
INC
Alegnab
Rose
stenwin77
Aslans Girl
Beto Ochoa
maverick muse
flenser
Seven Percent Solution
jerseyman
Theophile
Bambi
MsUnderestimated
Jaibones
Mojave Mark
ColtsFan
Aristotle
Squiggy
cjs1943
Red Pill

Middle Ground (not Biblical Creationists, but in favor of open debate of ID vs. Evolution (35):

DerKrieger
MadisonConservative
Liberty or Death
JetBoy
TheUnrepentantGeek
the goddess anna
MarkTheGreat
JS
Liberty or Death
Spolitics
Pablo
WastelandMan
Sultry Beauty
SoulGlo
a4g
E1701
woodcdi
Eric12470210
MB4
Branch Rickey
linlithgow
kongzilla
NuclearPhysicist
RMC1618
Bayam
Maquis
CCRWM
Capitana
TexasJew
AH_C
LevStrauss
Speakup
RiverCocytus
Steve Z
John

So, it appears to me that Biblical Creationists outnumber Anti-ID Evolutionists more than 2 to 1, and if you add the middle ground folks, the Pro-ID crowd outnumbers the Anti-ID crowd nearly 3 to 1.

Tell that to the folks at “Expelled Exposed” who claim:

We’ll show you why this movie is not a documentary at all, but anti-science propaganda aimed at creating the appearance of controversy where there is none.

Red Pill on April 22, 2008 at 4:31 AM

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/18/movie-review-expelled/comment-page-23/#comment-1084647

ITguy on February 9, 2014 at 1:56 AM

ITguy on February 9, 2014 at 1:56 AM

.
That’s a pretty useful data-sheet you’ve got there.

Kudos !

listens2glenn on February 10, 2014 at 1:36 AM

ITguy on February 9, 2014 at 1:56 AM

Nice find.

njrob on February 10, 2014 at 1:19 PM

Comment pages: 1 8 9 10