Fox News
Interviewer Cynthia McFadden asked Bush if the Bible was literally true.
“You know. Probably not. … No, I’m not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it, but I do think that the New Testament for example is … has got … You know, the important lesson is ‘God sent a son,”‘ Bush said.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Registration is currently closed. That means if you're not already registered, you can't comment. We will let you know if and when registration re-opens. 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
Well, he’s right and he’s wrong. Still love him.
He’s right about the Son part – apart from that – it’s just doctrine. Important, vital, and crucial – but just doctrine.
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 1:04 PM
My city is shutdown because of a snowstorm, leaving me plenty of time to comment on stuff, and I get the slowest news day ever.
BadgerHawk on December 9, 2008 at 1:10 PM
Egad.
I am an old earth creationist, so, I believe that the earth was created in epochs. I staunchly disagree with “proof” of macro evolution, so, in that regard (men from monkeys) I am in opposition.
As for his understanding of his faith, let’s just say that is not orthodox Christian theology. God sent His ONLY son…and yes, He is exclusive. Allah/Shiva/etc. are not the same. The more you LISTEN to other religions, the more you find they are world’s apart…and afterlifes apart!
Mommypundit on December 9, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Badgerhawk, have you seen Drudge? It’s Fitzmas in Chicago.
Wethal on December 9, 2008 at 1:11 PM
That is really sad. I wish I were on here because I had free time – and not at work. (oops, that slipped out…)
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 1:13 PM
That’s because evolution doesn’t set out to do that. It explains change in species over time.
The question of how life began is another theory altogether. And since the Bible doesn’t mention single-cell organisms, it is not part of that theory.
albo on December 9, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Even the Pope said the same thing a couple weeks ago.
Too many take the Bible too literally. Evolution is simply a part of God’s master plan.
JetBoy on December 9, 2008 at 1:16 PM
Why must knowledge stand still?
1. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults. – Dr. Duane Gish
2. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” 2 Timothy 3:16
apacalyps on December 9, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Mommypundit on December 9, 2008 at 1:11 PM
I am neither a Creationist or an Evolutionist. The former because I cannot quite wrap my mind around it and the latter because I can – and it does not work out. (Save me the rebuttals – I believe the Bible is literal fact so what can I say.)
What I always find interesting is when God made Adam – say as a 20-year-old man, all the medical tests you took of the guy would show a healthy 20-year-old man. He was dust just seconds ago. So unless the tests that scientist can do disregards the background “radiation” from Creation – they can’t really know just how old the place is.
I agree with the President though – the important fact is accepting and believing Christ is the Son of God who paid for our sins.
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 1:18 PM
I’m still at work. It’s just not busy because the city is shut down.
BadgerHawk on December 9, 2008 at 1:18 PM
When is Obama going to get answer questions like this?
zmdavid on December 9, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Can the headlines really handle 1000 comments?
TexasDan on December 9, 2008 at 1:26 PM
I think AP was greatly disappointed that the last one did not break a server.
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 1:27 PM
I think his voting record already answers questions like this. Besides you don’t ask Dark Barry questions that reflect that there are other gods and messiahs besides him.
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 1:28 PM
I believe a possibility is that God created the world in 7 days and that he did it “in process” with all of the interdependencies in place. When he created trees, he created both saplings and mature trees at the same time. Adam was created a full grown man. The rocks he created were both ancient and new, etc. No big deal for an omnipotent God.
In any event, whether he created the world in 7 days, or 7 eras is not relevant. The point of Genesis is to illustrate that God made the world and has dominion over it. I never understood why Christians sometimes divide themselves over the mechanics of how he did it. The power of Christ that unites us should be greater than anything that divides us.
As for the non-believer who implies that Christians are irrational or ignorant for believing in the Biblical creation, it takes just as much faith to believe that God did not create the world. The fact that God does not fit into a test tube does not prove he does not exist.
jman on December 9, 2008 at 1:29 PM
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is must viewing.
People keep forgetting Evolution is a theory, but they keep treating it like established fact. And while it seems quite plausible from observation, there’s no evidence showing a direct line from a primordeal ameoba to a modern human being which evolution must have to be valid. Where are the transitional life forms?
I still don’t understand why evolution would go to more complex lifeforms, when simpler would seem to be better in a hostile universe. I mean once a cell can do the equivalent of eating, pooping, and reproducing, its successful. What’s the impetus to change? Is there and Omega point which evolution is trying to achieve?
The Church isn’t hostile to Evolution, but Darwinists are hostile to the Church.
Iblis on December 9, 2008 at 1:30 PM
The fact that
Godflying pink unicorns don’t fit into a test tube does not prove they don’t exist.fixed that for you
albo on December 9, 2008 at 1:31 PM
God did not send “a” son but his only begotten Son, Mr. President.
And uh, please don’t equate the God of the bible with the other gods, especially that of the blow up yourself for me kind.
maynila on December 9, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Check out the tremendous amount of information contained in the microscopic DNA molecule. That’s pretty miraculous.
Iblis on December 9, 2008 at 1:32 PM
It doesn’t change. It doesn’t care
But random mutations in sexual replication cause traits to emerge in its offspring. Traits that are more favorable to survival, such as a cell with better cilia to get around a get food, survive better to reproduce and pass along these favorable genes. Do that over 4 billion years and out pop humans.
albo on December 9, 2008 at 1:34 PM
What I meant to say was “When will Obama be asked questions like this?” and “What would his answers be?”.
zmdavid on December 9, 2008 at 1:37 PM
I pretty much agree with everything he said.
Rightwingsparkle on December 9, 2008 at 1:38 PM
But Professor, before they got around to those sexual replications – how did those bits got there on it? How did it get there to have bits?
In order do that for 4 billion years and out pop the humans – where did the life stuff start? Where did the stuff for life to start come from? Crystals? Aliens (then who made them)? Just happened?
(The snarkiness is prevalent, but the questions are honest ones.)
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 1:40 PM
500 years ago )or so) Luther was still accurate…Let the scientist worry about science and the theologians worry about theology…
right2bright on December 9, 2008 at 1:43 PM
first, there was a primordial vaccuum. then came an energy fluxuation, which created the universe, space, time, energy and matter. stars eventually formed, went supernova, creating heavy elements, which accreted into planets, which led to complex organic chemicals, which created the first single-celled organisms, then dinosaurs, rats, democrats, ann coulter, republicans.
there you go
albo on December 9, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Obviously in the beginning there was nothing and that nothing exploded, creating the orderly universe we now enjoy! Absolutely no faith is needed to believe this.
jman on December 9, 2008 at 1:45 PM
It is entirely plausible that those “random” DNA mutations, nucleotide mis-pairings, tranposed segments, etc… are in fact directed by God’s Will and Purpose. He may intervene at the quantum and molecular level.
Deb on December 9, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Sure. He could be watching every sparrow fall. He could in fact be directing my typing fingers right now.
The thing about having a God to point to, is that you can attribute anything you want to him without providing evidence for that. That kind of explanation for things has always disappointed me.
albo on December 9, 2008 at 1:50 PM
Why all this talk of God and Jesus. We have a new Messiah now. Hope is alive.
faraway on December 9, 2008 at 1:50 PM
While I agree with Luther (I’m reformed…I have to) today’s “science,” informed by defunct Darwinian evolution/Naturalism, makes ALL SORTS of theological statements. It is dogmatic as any religion and steps all into and over Christianity or any other faith which begins with the premise, “God IS.”
When you have their high priests saying, “the universe is all there is, was or ever will be,” it says something about the role of religion.
Mommypundit on December 9, 2008 at 1:52 PM
True, but that is not God himself, just evidence of his works.
jman on December 9, 2008 at 1:55 PM
oh the humanity…
Kaptain Amerika on December 9, 2008 at 1:56 PM
I don’t know why anyone would be surprised that Bush’s beliefs aren’t clearly christian. This is the same man that said he believes Muslims and christians pray to the same God.
Benaiah on December 9, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Uh-oh. Bush just got banned at LGF
Spirit of 1776 on December 9, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Not so fast there… energy fluxations? Quick questions – how in did that get there?
You got to have an explanation for that. And hey, the vacuum, in order to be a vacuum – it can’t have anything in it to be going around having fluxations.
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 1:58 PM
That’s from the same interview. So, well, yeah. His input on science holds about as much water as his notion that we aren’t in the midst of a religious war.
Krydor on December 9, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Hopefully, you caught that I believe the Bible is literal. It is the Word of God given to us not for history or biology, but for Truth.
To me – how it all got here is a matter of record, but I’m willing to listen and discuss. The Faith thing is because of the Holy Spirit. He’s rather hard to corner with a test tube.
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 2:01 PM
The biggest problem with random or non-directed evolution is time.
15 Billion years is not enough time for random chance to go from nothingness to homo-sapiens. (15 billion years being the estimated age of the observable universe) With no evidence of mistakes. In order for random evolution to be true, every decision branch, every oportunity for either a or b to happen, had to happen in favor of intelligent life. Especially when you consider it took 5 billion of those 15 billion years for life to evolve on earth. So you have about 10 billion years for the elements of life to be created by the birth and death of the first generation of stars. The big bang had to happen in such a way that the first elements, gravity and time were all manifested in a way favorable to life.
Now it could be that we’re in a series of big bangs, and this one just happened to roll the dice the right way. And that every decision branch over 15 billion years happened in favor of intelligent life. But the odds are against it.
Iblis on December 9, 2008 at 2:02 PM
the creation of virtual particles/antiparticles from the vacuum energy of space. It led to the big bang. At least, that’s a theory.
albo on December 9, 2008 at 2:03 PM
Coolio…. Bush is a Deist… like a lot of our founding Fathers…
On evolution? Whose to say God did not create Man THROUGH Evolution… you know, set up the rules so he would appear? They are not mutualy exclusive as either the “earth is only 6000 year old types”, or the “there is not GOD atheist types”, would have you believe…
Romeo13 on December 9, 2008 at 2:03 PM
Science and theology ask and answer fundamentally different kinds of questions (”What” and “Why,” to simplify tremendously). Theologians and scientists who venture into each other’s paddocks do violence to the question-asking enterprise as a whole.
The fact that a paradigm involving self-organization can be described, tested, and observed in action in no way contravenes the idea that there is some sentient, animating Principle behind the evolutionary, complexifying tendencies of matter and energy in a far-from-equilibrium state. The belief that the universe is a Created, Known, and Loved place does not contravene the premise that it is an orderly place, in which internally-consistent “laws” operate in ways which are knowable. Indeed, without this belief, we get into just the sort of irrational occasionalism which has proved so problematic for Islam as a backdrop for rational societal growth (”A” does not cause “B,” but is only the occasion for Allah to cause “B”).
The fact that I personally judge myself to have no need for a God Hypothesis in no way positions me as someone who needs to attack those who find more meaning and beauty in a universe with someOne at the helm.
Noocyte on December 9, 2008 at 2:04 PM
And what makes a person a Christian? I think it is faith in Christ alone for your salvation. A genuine faith will produce a changed life. Rejecting Christ makes you un-christian, so unless I hear of him doing so, I can not judge his faith. Maybe his understanding, but not his faith.
jman on December 9, 2008 at 2:04 PM
We are in the same camp
jman on December 9, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Still seems a little light on the factual evidence – sort of takes a bit of faith to believe in doesn’t it?
You can theorize all sorts of things, but the things about Reality is those theories have to at least come together in a way that rational thought can follow it.
Yeah, I know this coming from a person who believes the Bible is literal, but then for me I believe in an almighty God who can do what He desires to do when He desires to do it. You ask for evidence, but have you really looked for it? To me, it is a changed life through Christ. If that is true, the rest follows.
(Keeping it short – I could go on and on, but let’s not get too long.)
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 2:08 PM
We are indeed in the same camp.
That is why we frustrate so many people – there are one or two things we would defend to the death. A LOT of other things we would simply go ‘okay, so?’
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 2:10 PM
S
Nope, no faith involved–you look at the evidence presented for the theory, and conditionally accept or disregard it until a better theory comes along.
It’s the scientific method. That’s why I will abandon this explanation if something that better explains creation comes along. Would you abandon God as the creator if a better explanation for creation comes along?
albo on December 9, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Uhm, yes, because he would not be God. I get the feeling you think Christians are thick.
You should read “The God Who Is There” by Francis Schaeffer. He talks about the dichotomy of Truth and Absolutes. The scientific method is a technique and system for determining facts in evidence. It is also a catch-all phrase for theories that have very little to do with evidence at all.
If Christ were not truly raised from the dead, I’d not follow Him – and would be a fool to do so. However, He has, and I’d be a fool not to follow. That is not a statement made of theories or fairy dust. One made with evidence and faith. Cold, calculating thought as well as feeling. However, that faith and feeling have a basis in Truth.
What of your theoretical of how things got here?
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 2:20 PM
i also believe that adam and eve rode dinosaurs to church.
lolwut on December 9, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Why are there trees that keep light from shining on the animals? “God” wants it that way.
LevStrauss on December 9, 2008 at 2:21 PM
albo,
you said that you conditionally accept or disregard – whatever criteria are on your list for acceptance/denial this doesn’t constitute knowing. It’s a ‘best guess’ that you feel comfortable treating as true until something better comes along. It’s the same thing as a belief because you are exercising faith to hold it as valid without a sure knowledge of it’s truth. The only thing that distinguishes your belief from a religious faith is that you are willing to more readily discard it – but this does not mean it isn’t faith.
gwelf on December 9, 2008 at 2:23 PM
I didn’t say he wasn’t a christian. I said his beliefs aren’t clearly christian. Like so many do these days, he tries to mash together various worldly beliefs with christianity. That doesn’t make him a non-christian but it certainly illustrates a weakness in his faith.
Benaiah on December 9, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Adam and Eve WERE dinosaurs.
ronsfi on December 9, 2008 at 2:26 PM
But your paragraph before this was a classic of begging the question–you assumed as true the contention that Jesus existed, he was divine, and that he rose from the dead. But you present no evidence that this was so.
The scientific mind looks at that and says, “Where’s your evidence for that–and extraordinary evidence, so be sure, since that is an extraordinary theory?” (And the nebulous concept of “faith” and pointing to a book written by men is not evidence.)
albo on December 9, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Ahem… God Himself said He did not create man by evolution. Read Genesis.
Maxx on December 9, 2008 at 2:28 PM
I don’t assume it is true. There is the Holy Spirit. Yes, I know, but your not believing that or not understanding does not get rid of Him. Even apart from that – there is evidence of changed lives. There is also the evidence that the Bible has – but I doubt you’ve honestly looked at that yourself. It is not simply written by man. Have you seriously checked into this yourself? Proved this yourself? If you can truly prove that the Bible is a lie – I’d like to see and hear about your evidence.
At any rate, I’m going to say “Faith” and you are going to say “Crazy.” One of us is either right or wrong. You’d probably say both perhaps. I’ve honestly looked at both sides of this. I became a Christian when I was in my late twenties-after a lot of thought, searching, and trying lots of things.
I used to do that whole “it’s written by men” routine too, until I ran into a reasonable assurance that it was wrong. The God who created the heavens and the earth – can be almighty enough to keep the Bible just as He wants it. The Author of the Book is still around and keeps it as He wants it – and those who fear Him also keep it that way.
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 2:35 PM
Completely mainstream answer by Bush to a pretty silly question.
The media seem to be working overtime to try to get him on record saying crazy things or admitting he was wrong, etc. He’s a pretty patient guy. I wouldn’t put up with it.
Y-not on December 9, 2008 at 2:37 PM
It doesn’t. Not even close.
spmat on December 9, 2008 at 2:39 PM
God knows what he is doing and everybody else doesn’t.
Now before many of you say God should have done this and God should have done that, lemme see you do the right thing, signal first before you merge, genius.
maynila on December 9, 2008 at 2:41 PM
I didn’t read all the comments so I apologize if this has been pointed out already, but President Bush is absolutely right evolution does not fully explain the mysteries of life. It is not intended to. It is just the best explanation that we have for individual species based on physical evidence. I think it is almost certianly the correct theory but that in itself does not say anything about the existence or non-existence of deities. The theory that any particular deity does in fact exist however, it not well supported by physical evidence in it’s own right.
Ars Moriendi on December 9, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Good grief!!! Don’t we have enough of this crap (the disparagement of the faithful) from Charles Johnson. Now HA has to join the Charlie anti-religion parade!?!?!?
Andy in Agoura Hills on December 9, 2008 at 2:55 PM
This thread at least proves that evolution and progress are not exclusive.
LevStrauss on December 9, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Um, have, thankyou…
Change DAY to period of time… and all of the sudden Genesis pretty well matches the scientific data of how we came to be…
Nothing… Light… Heaven… earth… Land and Seas… Plants… animals… man…
Or.. Big bang… Galaxies… Sun… Earth… Land and Seas… Protoplankton (Plants)… animals… man….
Given as how Hebrews had no words for things like Big Bang, or Galxies… and had to put things into the language and frame of reference they understood, its a pretty amazing coincidence.
Romeo13 on December 9, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Romeo13 on December 9, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Would love to simply go “Wow, that is great” but the Hebrews did – in Moses time – have a word for a day – like we think of the word. And that was the word Moses uses when he wrote it. They also had a word “day” meaning epoch or period or event – and that was not the word Moses used.
If he had, then this would not have been a controversy – until Darwin got to the ape-man thing.
It is a good match though – and personally, it does not truly matter. You can believe blue fairies caused the whole thing. Might not sound too sane, but you can believe it. It is that whole thread about sin, needing a savior, and a Holy God that really is the point of the Book.
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 3:11 PM
So, then, it is your contention that the Bible is absolutley correct, and that the Universe, world, down to Man was created in 7 literal days?
Do we have the source Docs that Moses wrote? uh… no… we have some pretty old stuff… but not those…
So, we have a narrative that fits what science has evidence of, with just a bit of modification (but of course, you can’t have that as it would proove that God didn’t make sure that every thing ever said in his Holy Book is not literaly the word of God… Kinda like the whole commandment Murder/Kill thing…)…
Believe as you wish… nothing I could ever say will sway you anyway… so I will not even try…
Romeo13 on December 9, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Oh… I see. God just mistook six days for billions of years. Yeah, I guess that could happen…. not.
Maxx on December 9, 2008 at 3:25 PM
The spirit of your comments is right. Science has developed whole new vocabularies, and you wouldn’t expect those to be reflected in scripture written over 2000 years ago.
But you start with, “Change DAY to period of time…” And there’s the problem. It’s easy enough to make the point that day does not always literally mean DAY. Sometimes it means “period of time,” sometimes it means “point in time,” and sometimes it literally means day.
But in the specific case of Genesis 1, we read for each of the six days of Creation, “and the evening and the morning were the first [second, third, etc.] day.” The scripture seems to be going to a great deal of trouble to insist that it’s talking about a literal day.
Evolution/Creation is a great stumblingblock. Evolution has been asserted so often — though proven never — that it’s very hard for people to accept clear scripture in the face of what they think is scientific fact.
As much as I sympathize, though, the only way that evolution and creation can be compatible is if you change one to fit the other. And isn’t it curious that it’s always creation that is expected to be changed?
And how often it starts with changing “day” into “period of time?”
Here’s the deal: for evolution to be true, huge periods of time are required. There’s just no way to believe in evolution that happened in a few thousand years or so, much less six days.
Of course, there’s also no real way to explain why evolution isn’t occurring right now. The usual answer is to assert that it is happening now, to label any minor adaptation to the environment as “micro-evolution,” and to assert that these minor adaptations are cumulative and account for everything that exists (”macro-evolution”). Which goes back to requiring huge periods of time.
But evolution faces one other huge problem: it depends on randomness. If all the evolutionary changes are random, then it would take 100 times as long for evolution to happen in the right direction.
In fact, if I considered evolution to be proven, I’d find it necessary to believe in some form of God that directs evolution to happen. Otherwise, it’s absurd to believe that random changes could ultimately result in the complex and highly ordered system around us.
It doesn’t work in reverse, though. If I believe in God, then evolution is immediately unnecessary.
tom on December 9, 2008 at 3:26 PM
I believe he means that the folks God was talking to would grasp “days” better than millennia. That could be true, but He was talking to Moses who was writing it down, and the two of of them would have been able to agree on the terms.
Now to answer Romeo13’s question – yes, I believe in a literal Bible. The human, scientific part of me would love to qualify that – but it says what it says. The Jewish Torah has been around – unchanged – for a long time. They were afraid of offending the Author.
You are right though – there is not arguing about it. You think one way and I think another. I’ve honestly looked at both sides – from a lot of different angles. Have you done the same thing?
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 3:31 PM
It does tend to work out that way.
I saw a TV special once narrated by Dennis Weaver that was earnestly explaining the miracles of the Bible using science to show they could have happened. I’m sure they were earnest and sincere. Idioitic would be a word I would use, but instead will say misguided.
The Red Sea parted and dry ground was under their feet – because God wanted it that way to show His power – not some strange natural phenomenon that happened and God claimed it was his. That is like the Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court showing his power with the eclipse.
Some things are not explained by science – that is why we call them miracles. However, some folks get crazy with that word too – and I mean believers. Miracles are about proving or showing God’s will – not random occurrences that happen willy-nilly about the place.
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Some parts of the Bible are to be taken literally: “When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him,” Mt. 8:1.
Some are to be taken metaphorically: “And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth,” Rev. 6:13.
The Bible contains poetry, history, apocalyptic, gospel, letters, etc. As with any other literature, the genre informs the reader as to how to interpret it.
Jesus said, “Haven’t you read… that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female,” Mt. 19:4. He is quoting a historical passage, not poetry or apacolyptic, to answer a question about divorce. Hence, for Christians, the creation account has no room for evolution. Karl MArx endorsed evolution, but Jesus didn’t.
So for Christians this puts the kabosh on human evolution, at least from beings that reproduce asexually.
Akzed on December 9, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Any of us being here requires a string of low-probability events. Setting the clock back a few thousand years and replaying history, assuming some events are nearly random, and few if any of us are here.
What if Columbus had been sunk at sea?
What if Washington had been trapped in Brooklyn by the Brits in 1776?
What if Lee broke through at Gettysburg?
What if Japan had decided that Pearl Harbor attack not worth it?
Are we all here as part of Gods’ plan? Maybe, but we don’t have the blueprint or source code to that plan.
dedalus on December 9, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Of course. Imagine this question bring put to Hussein:
“Do you believe that God inspired Mohammed to tell Muslims to kill Jews like it says in Koran?”
Akzed on December 9, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Akzed on December 9, 2008 at 3:42 PM
When I mean I take it literally, I mean that I do understand the points you make. If it is another person, and not God, being quoted – that is not Him speaking.
I’ve heard – well Israel was married to more than one wife, so it must be biblical to be a polygamist. To which the reply is find in the Bible where God says that is okay. It has to be read for what it is. Context counts for a lot.
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 3:51 PM
dedalus on December 9, 2008 at 3:42 PM
The mathematical formula – (insert incredibly large number) to one.
There is always the once. I’ve heard Dawkins say “Well, it happened. We are here aren’t we?”
That is true, and it is a decent comeback, but it does not tell us how we got here. It is not the debate stopper that I think he thinks it is. (laugh)
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 3:55 PM
John Knox (famous Scot theologian) was talking about how we got here with a famous mathematician (sorry cannot recall – but hey it’s Knox’s anecdote.)
The mathematician says – “Of all the stars in the universe and all the worlds around those stars, surely one of them must contain life. This happens to be the one.” This was to end the discussion about how we got here.
Knox replies “Of all the steamer trunk in the world, surely one of them must have a body in it. Scotland Yard is still going to want to know who put it there.”
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 3:58 PM
So when Bush says he’s not a literalist (presumably referring to Genesis 1) he is contradicting Jesus. Certainly he doesn’t mean to, which is why presidents w/o divinity degrees should probably not answer loaded theological questions.
Akzed on December 9, 2008 at 3:58 PM
John Knox (c. 1510 – 24 November 1572)
When was the steam engine invented?
Akzed on December 9, 2008 at 4:00 PM
This post is so profound in its insight, so sublime in its logic, so divinely inspired in its reasoning, that we are struck dumb with awe.
Created? According to your scientific mind, this can be duplicated in a laboratory. Why hasn’t it?
cjs1943 on December 9, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Right Reverend Monsignor Ronald Arbuthnott Knox
Sorry, wrong Knox – but right story.
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 4:04 PM
cjs1943 on December 9, 2008 at 4:01 PM
That was a much nicer refutation than mine, and and less wordy. I salute you.
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 4:05 PM
You have a point – or we can see that he is a politician and not a priest. I know, this assumes thought-patterns and logical constructs among the populace, but hey it is true.
Though, you are correct.
What is wrong with the phrase “Well, the Bible says…”? It can be used by Christians. He might have tried that.
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Right Reverend Monsignor Ronald Arbuthnott Knox
Sorry, wrong Knox – but right story.
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 4:04 PM
Thanks Akzed for catching my incorrect fact there. I had a Scot when he was actually English – and a Catholic to boot!
Thank you.
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 4:09 PM
Thank you. Keep up the good fight.
cjs1943 on December 9, 2008 at 4:10 PM
Not bad for the history of the universe in one sentence.
Count to 10 on December 9, 2008 at 4:26 PM
No debating that we are here–unless some commenters have passed a Turing Test. The question of how we got here requires something difficult to comprehend in any of the 4 approaches below:
1.) Young Earth Creationism
2.) Old Earth Metaphorical Bible
3.) Guided evolution
4.) Materialistic evolution
Seems most people in the U.S. are somewhere between 2& 3.
dedalus on December 9, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Its the nature of quantum vacuum. Granted, we don’t have the details worked out, but, in some sense, it can’t not happen.
Count to 10 on December 9, 2008 at 4:30 PM
Even better than – “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth?”
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 4:31 PM
If at first I really can’t say or admit I don’t know, I will call it something else and use that against the ignorant Christians?
At any rate – how did that vacuum get there? Or can a vacuum truly get anywhere or be anywhere?
Stuff had to happen. The tough part is figuring out how that stuff got there. Personally, I go with the God says it – and it is so bunch.
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 4:34 PM
The production of the basic chemicals has been done in the laboratory. The problem is that the organization of those chemicals into self-replicating forms is a low probability event, one that took around a billion years over the surface of an entire planet (theoretically). That’s a wee bit hard to duplicate in time for publication.
Count to 10 on December 9, 2008 at 4:35 PM
dedalus on December 9, 2008 at 4:28 PM
You are probably right – except for the metaphorical bit.
I think what folks have a hard time wrapping their mind around (and I do too) is the idea of Adam and Eve running around with all those dinosaurs. Dinosaurs that science has told us there is no way in heck that is going on.
So, choosing between the God they love and the people they have to live with – they find a compromise. One that will not doom them or separate them from God, but will make things awkward for them during talks like this.
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 4:37 PM
You do realize that you did not answer the question. You only said it was totally complicated and that should be enough for anybody.
Hey, I’m with you – it is complicated. It really cannot be replicated in the time allowed – because it never was done the way you theorize. Any theory you come up with involves stuff. The “stuff” has to exist.
The trick is getting the stuff to exist in the first place. I have not heard a good explanation – apart from a Creator – how that stuff got there.
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 4:40 PM
When you really get into the subject, you find that “stuff” is not an accurate description of what is going on. Dynamics, or “rules” is probably more appropriate. Those don’t necessarily come from anywhere–they simply are. Compared to the complexity that can arises out of them, the rules are pretty simple. We don’t know all of them, though, and we don’t know how much of them we don’t know, but we are getting to the point where it is hard to find phenomena we can’t describe.
Count to 10 on December 9, 2008 at 4:41 PM
Oh wait – I was not completely honest.
Okay, you get the stuff. Now you have to give it life. See it is not just the stuff (I lied about that part of it) you got to give it life.
Whatever electro/crysto/nano/fusion/ thing you got going there in the theory has to give it life. Then sustain that life as it changes and replicates. Then do it in a manner that appears to not exactly be chaotic.
As stated – there is always the once, but a LOT of onces?
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Wait, why do you believe in dinosaurs? If there were dinosaurs contemporaneous with humanity, there would still be bones. All we have are rocks that look like bones. If you don’t think that the Earth was old enough for bones to have fossilized, why do you think they reflect any living organisms?
Count to 10 on December 9, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Okay, now if I told you that I believe in God and there were reasons that “simply are” – would your response be one of ” oh okay then”?
I rather doubt it. My point is simply this – the Universe around us is here and saying it was always here is not true. Thermodynamics says that this is not so. Things get used up. Do we just happen to be at the point where things were not used up?
I do not fully grasp the laws of thermodynamics, but I do understand the idea that things are used up. Also, if things are used up, it must have an ending. If something has an ending – it most likely has a beginning.
So, we cannot have an Eternal Creator, but instead have an Eternal Universe?
(Not buying this…)
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 4:48 PM
(laugh) I was making a case for why folks struggle with creationism as believers. Actually, I don’t “believe” in dinosaurs. I know that scientists tell us that these bones are such and such. They tell us they are old and all of that. Other scientists agree with them. They tell us all those things have died out. Then off the coast of Africa – that fish gets caught.
Do you think that all the dinosaur skeletons in all the museums were actually the bones of dinosaurs? None of them are castings?
It is possible that the big buggers were not as prevalent as we are taught they were. Me? I have no idea. I don’t know and can rarely find a scientist who does not have an agenda to explain it to me.
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Not sure what you mean hear.
Keep in mind, there is no substance called “life.” No mystical energy the surrounds us and penetrates us.
All we have are self replicating patterns.
Cell membranes form readily out of their component parts, and DNA can replicate in the right conditions. It is clearly not impossible for a simple life form to spring out of this, it is only a question of the likelihood. Once you have that, then you can beat back a fair amount of unlikelihood just by noting that we wouldn’t be here asking the question if it didn’t happen here (under the evolutionary hypothesis). You can then invoke the mind boggling number of stars that we observe in the universe.
Count to 10 on December 9, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Okay, hit submit too soon.
Don’t get from what I said – that I do not think any of the dinosaurs walked the earth. Something had to leave the bones behind. I just don’t think the scientists are completely accurate in their assimilation of the data.
Don’t know, but I do know there have been mistakes made – and corrections slow in coming.
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 4:55 PM
?
None of them are dinosaur bones. Even the originals are the rocks that formed in the indentations left by such bones.
Count to 10 on December 9, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Not sure what you mean hear.
Keep in mind, there is no substance called “life.” No mystical energy the surrounds us and penetrates us.
All we have are self replicating patterns.
Cell membranes form readily out of their component parts, and DNA can replicate in the right conditions. It is clearly not impossible for a simple life form to spring out of this, it is only a question of the likelihood. Once you have that, then you can beat back a fair amount of unlikelihood just by noting that we wouldn’t be here asking the question if it didn’t happen here (under the evolutionary hypothesis). You can then invoke the mind boggling number of stars that we observe in the universe.
Count to 10 on December 9, 2008 at 4:54 PM
So you are saying that if I ended your self-replicating pattern (what I would call murder) – that would be okay?
No, of course not – because despite what you said “Life” does in fact have an intrinsic value in and of itself. Squash a bug and then compare it with an unsquashed bug. Is the only difference physical? You think the bug would agree with you?
What I mean by “Life” is the fact something can and does replicate itself. It has movement. It can be self-motivated. What inanimate object does that? The very fact that you and I can discern value in life gives evidence itself that there is something to it. If we were mere automatons and constructs of matter – why would we care? What evolutionary value would be in that? Wouldn’t it be better if – like lions and spiders – the weaker of us get slaughtered and out of the way of their betters?
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Okay, my error, described it incorrectly. Do you feel that the amount of dinosaurs (reconstructed) represent the actual amount of animals that actually lived at the time? Do you think we can truly know what that might be or is it more of a hypothetical construct based on evidence surmised by the scientists themselves?
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 5:02 PM
Actually, I don’t really have a choice. All theories of past events are inherently uncertain, no matter how well observations support them.
There may be a singular “beginning,” but it could also be that this big flow of entropy (stuff getting used up) is just the afterglow of one event along an infinite time line. We are observing at the point where things are in the process of being used up, because we have to use stuff up to make observations.
Count to 10 on December 9, 2008 at 5:03 PM
Count to 10
Did you and I already have this discussion once before?
You think Christians are mindless twits and I disagree with you?
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Fossilization is a rare event. Presumably, if we had a complete record of all bones of all animals that ever lived on the planet (!), we would actually have a hard time dividing them into species.
Actually, that’s kind of a neat concept: can you imagine a complete family tree of the planet? I think that would be aw inspiring.
Count to 10 on December 9, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Oh, I’ve evolved away from the “mindless twits” position. Mostly I’ve been sticking to advising people about where they can logically stick in their beliefs.
Or, at least that is what I’m trying to do.
Count to 10 on December 9, 2008 at 5:10 PM
Count to 10 on December 9, 2008 at 5:03 PM
You concede there may have been a “beginning”, but see for me that is only the beginning. If it came into being, it had to have come from somewhere.
Personally, I’m willing to look at this from a lot of angles, but it has to balance out to something that strikes me as Reality. It has to come together, in other words. Wispy constructs are why I avoided Christianity for a long time in the first place. When I started really looking into it, the less wispy the Bible’s explanation seemed to me. I believe it, because I believe “He has risen!” If that is true -and it is, the rest of it is too.
If you seriously would like to converse about this or whatever – email me at lhfjobs2003@yahoo.com (actually that’s an open invitation to anyone who wants to email me.)
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 5:13 PM
he gets himself in trouble when he says Muslims worship the same god as Christians and other religions.
I’m not sure he actually beleives that and is looking at it in broad generalities like “The God of Abraham” is in Christianity and Judaism and Islam.
its a dumbed down answer and wrong of course, however he could spark riots accross the world, has the MSM to deal with and of course there are Muslims in the military and they can’t think its a holy war against Islam they are fighting.
jp on December 9, 2008 at 5:14 PM
Count to 10 on December 9, 2008 at 5:10 PM
Well, you’ve been polite enough, but I get the feeling we are simply running around one another.
I am trying hard (AP, I swear I am) to keep my posts short, but I realize I mainly simply come off as a bit dimwitted, I’m afraid.
I also don’t want to be rude or cut short an honest question. I’m snarky (no apologies there) but I do try to keep it polite. Especially when I am talking about the Bible or anything having to with Christianity.
I do enjoy a good discussion about this, but I like to know that the person and I have at least a modicum of respect for the other’s viewpoint.
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 5:17 PM
I think he spoke as he thought he should as President of the United States and the Leader of the Free World – not a humble servant of Christ.
It might have even been the right thing to do, but it was probably expedient – which usually means it was not the best thing most likely.
kybowexar on December 9, 2008 at 5:19 PM