Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
I thought the use of the word scientism was exactly correct. I'm an agnostic but I can see a world in which scientism is the chosen religion and that "scientist" is the new name of the high priest. Sciense and mathmatics take years of study before one can gain a working knowledge and because of this fact when we listen to scientists we believe their words without doubt. Also science can't stand up to its own testing- "the outcome of experiments are affected by the observer observing it" what!!!
Not sure about that. I can work from either standpoint, but only one of them points to tangible truth. Besides, you'd have huge trouble getting the language to work effectively. Different concepts of what truth is can be a difficult one to overcome. lol
Science is not omnicompetent, I agree (and nor have I ever heard Dawkins espouse the notion that it is), but it aims to be. Whether or not it will ever reach that goal is another topic entirely, but it has provided the only useful answers available to us, and underestimating it is folly in the extreme.
Yes, science is a human construct, but the phenomona it observes are not. Yes, science should be questioned, and so it is. Nothing is accepted within the scientific community until it has been subjected to intense scrutiny and experiment by the process of peer-review. In fact, the goal of science is not to prove things, but to disprove things. Every scientific process has the specific purpose of trying to find flaws in our theories. This forms the whole basis of our understanding.
The major problem I see here is that the foundation of the scientific method means that god is completely unnecessary. If you apply the same rigorous analyses that must be applied to science to the existence of god, god fails at every turn, simply because the scientific method requires evidence. Since there is no evidence for the existence of god, god doesn't even stand up to the most cursory scrutiny.
So... science defines everything; even things which it has no business speaking to? Just because science cannot prove or disprove God does not mean God does not exist. In fact, it proves that science cannot speak to it because there is not enough evidence to make a scientific determination. You're a fool to think science disproves the existence of God. Evidence is not proof and much of the evidence you would use to disprove I would use to prove His existence. Science fails as much as man's mind.
1. I don't believe I said that science defines everything.
2. There is nothing that should be outside the purview of science. That's the point of the scientist. Question everything, even what you think you know.
3. I didn't at any point say that science disproves the existence of god. What I said was that the same testing can't be applied, and that god is a logical improbability. Interesting that I can read your words, since science has failed.
God is a logical improbability? Ok, from your perspective I can see how that is true. Understanding by faith with knowledge enables me to look at the evidence differently than you and realize there is no possibility that God doesn't exist. Your reasoning and logic is all based on the flawed and unreliable mind of man.
No, it's all based on interpretation of the available evidence, none of which suggests the existence of a deity, unless you can provide me with some, of course.
Have you read the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ at TalkOrigins? It says "Last Update: March 17, 1997". It is a good starting point for anyone who doubts the quantity of transitional fossils found.
There are millions of existing species, hence millions of historical species. There has not been the time and money to find even a tiny fraction of those yet. (And why should we believe that more than a fraction actually fossilised?)
"And why should we believe that more than a fraction actually fossilised?"
This is a very good point. Most creationists don't understand that the conditions under which fossilization takes place are quite rare. Sometimes I'm amazed that we have as many as we do.
That being said, the fossil record is impressive, especially for the evolution of some species like whales.
Two books that illustrate different aspects of evolution, with recent evidence and understanding, are:
"Your Inner Fish" (Neil Shubin). Shows the predictive power of evolution. If you want a fossil of a particular historical species, identify the date, use geographical maps to find exposed strata of that age, then spend years (!) looking. You may be lucky before the money runs out.
"The Making of the Fittest" (Sean B Carroll). Very much a DNA-oriented exploration of the evolution tree.
You have to start somewhere. I suggest a book that provides a summary of your areas of interest, at the right depth. Try "Evolution" by Mark Ridley. It is an undergraduate textbook (so you probably won't learn enough to do research). It should provide the context.
It is nearly 750 large pages, with perhaps 700 references to other papers and books, etc. It is a good jumping-off point. (It is about 4 years old, and there have been 1000s of papers and other publications since then).
A useful example of how microevolution accumulates into macroevolution is the realisation of the "ring species".
Creatures are in a geographical ring, and adjacent creatures can normally inter-breed. But there is a discontinuity, where adjacent creatures don't inter-breed, and so are different species. So:
A inter-breeds with B, B with C .... Y with Z, but Z doesn't inter-breed with A.
In effect, B, C ... Y are transitional variants between A and Z. But they are all still living!
A common misconception of creationists is that evolution can't create "new information." This, however, is just not the case as seen recently in the following:
nylonase - bacteria able to digest nylon
Italian wall lizard - development of a new cecal valve
"A common misconception of creationists is that evolution can't create "new information.""
As well as your examples, there are lots more. See "The Making of the Fittest" by Sean B Carroll. He describes the DNA-level mechanisms that add new genes.
Example: a copying mistake duplicates genes for seeing one colour. It is then possible for one of the copies to evolve without destroying colour vision, which is still supported by the other. This enables a gene for an extra colour to evolve.
Since I was talking about evolution when I asked what was missing, I'll stay with that. Although my degree is in Mathematical Physics, I'm out-of-date, and I've been reading Victor J. Stenger to see what he has to say about the physics parts of your question. But he is not the only person worth reading.
I don't know how much you know about the basics of the science of evolution. If you don't know the basics, the existing evidence is likely to be unconvincing or meaningless.
There is a steady accumulation of evidence in all those areas. The evidence we have is vastly more than we had 50 years ago. It will be vastly more in 50 years time. How long are you prepared to wait? Are you in a hurry to place god into gaps?
How much effort are you prepared to spend on learning about the evidence? If I give you a fact out of context, you may dismiss it. Facts out of context are "stamp collecting", as Rutherford unfairly implied about all sciences except physics.
"There is a steady accumulation of evidence in all those areas."- Good one, Barry. In other words, the evidence is incomplete just like ATLpirate said. The same leaps have been made in the areas of biblical research and archeology, among other aspects of supporting the innerancy of scripture, the existence of God, the resurrection, and so forth.
"Good one, Barry. In other words, the evidence is incomplete just like ATLpirate said."
The current evidence is more than sufficient to have confidence that "evolution by natural selection with common descent" is the process that resulted in the living things we see.
What we typically see is new evidence fleshing out details, such as refining the evolutionary tree, identifying where particular genes arose, arguing over relative importances of different mechanisms, etc.
The current evidence is more than sufficient to have confidence that God exists and is the Creator of our finite universe and us as humans as well as Christ's life, death on the cross, and resurrection.
Again with such absolute language like "destroys." This is the black/white, forceful language of religion. When you rebut something, it becomes fact. This is why you can make statements like arminans have no leg to stand on, etc.
Well, here's the context. God wants to find a partner for Adam, so he brings animals (that he just made) to him. But, he can't find a helper among them, so he decides to make woman.
"It would make no sense for God to say that Adam needs a help meet and then proceed to bring animals to Adam, among which he KNEW Adam would find no suitable help meet."
I agree this action is ridiculous if god already "knew." However, it makes perfect sense if you understand that, at this point in theology, god wasn't considered omniscient (notice Gen 3:9 as well).
You should focus on the last part of v18: I will "make" him a helper suitable for him." Now, why would god say he is going to do something, if he's already done it? Then comes verse 19 in which god makes possible helpers for him.
Gen 2:19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air
An interesting point here is that god thought an animal would be a suitable partner for Adam. You know, that's illegal in ALL 50 states, even Arkansas
"And just like that, your "contradiction" is gone."
Well, I'm glad you're doing some studying, and your response this time is much better than the last. However, you have not solved the contradiction. The key is in the preceding verse that says:
Gen 2:18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
I absolutely have a big problem with Atheism being taught in our schools. While Atheism is not itself a religion, it directly pertains to religious beliefs and any public school teacher suggesting to students that God does not exist is crossing the line.
Science on the other hand has nothing to do with religion and is an essential part of educating our children and preparing them for the vast world ahead.
It is up to parents to discuss religion with their children. Not the Government.
Great series so far Brett. I really should check out this book. It presents great points which challenge a lot of atheistic views. Did you get this book from your pastor? :) God Bless
Yes, he has been going through parts of it with our young people ages 17-25 once a month on Sunday nights. I've been involved with the group and it's been wonderful. You should see chapter 8- good stuff.
There is no reason to oppose belief in a deity like there's no reason to oppose any other ignorance or delusion of others. Particularly when such a delusion actively seeks to force itself into the lives of everyone else.
"God created all lifeforms in a period of six, 24hr days just several thousand years ago".
Several thousand years ago? Dont you mean several billion years ago? Anyone who can, in this day and age still hold the earth as being a few thousand years old is in serious trouble.
As for science as a worldview, I would accept it to an extend, however complete rationality would make for a very sterile existence.
There is no concrete proof that the earth is billions of years old. We cannot even rely on the dating practices used in the evidence for such a view. Scientifically, the age of the earth cannot be decisively determined because it is not demonstrable. We were not there! The best evidence we have is in scripture- 'yôm' as well as geneological and other recorded historical data in scripture.
"There is no concrete proof that the earth is billions of years old."
The evidence that the earth is over 6,000 years is overwhelming Brett. Heck, just tree rings alone show that the earth is over 11,000 years old. And, radiometric dating shows that it's 4.5 billion years old. Regardless of what creationists say, this dating method is accurate. There are at least six forms of radiometric dating and more than one form is used in each instance.
Since we're talking about Genesis and stars, I recommend that everyone watch this youtube video about the Hubble Deep Field (if you haven't already seen it). It's only 6 1/2 minutes long and well worth it. I promise you will feel humbled.
"Again, none of this is a contradiction; it's merely a more detailed account of the formation of both Adam and (later) Eve."
Are you kidding? In the first chapter, the birds were created before Adam (birds on 3rd day, man on 6th day) but in the second chapter they were created after Adam.
There is no way to get around this; I have the text in front of me. Please respond with chapter and verse reference how I am wrong.
Gen 1:16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.
The moon is described as a great light, not something that reflects light. Oh, and I like that the writer throws in the stars as almost an afterthought. There are an estimated 70 sextrillion stars in our universe (7 with 22 zeros). Is this really an, "oh yea I almost forgot" item?
1) He's reading large chunks, to be with no orientation, so it becomes boring.
2) Maybe there is. Perhaps the already converted likes it, but if he wants to challenge atheists/agnostics belief, he should sharpen his arguments.. and not just read from a book for 10 minute straight.
3) I want to watch it. The subject is interesting, but 5 videos in a row reading straight from a book just gets tiring.
"Maybe he did it that way just to mess with you, crazypills. Haha. ;)"
I'll take your response that god is illogical and incompetent as an answer for most of the questions. However, this still doesn't explain the differing order of creation accounts in Gen 1 & 2, and why the moon is called a light.
Thank you, but I'm only reading through 1 chapter and he puts some things better than I can and gives me a good starting point to expand on other points. Also, if no one is interested then why did you watch and hundreds of others are watching? If you think it's a waste of time then make better use of your time and don't come back.
The videos, subject and intention isn't a waste of time. I just wished you'd sharpened your points and prepared the videos more. Thats all. Don't take that as an insult, its not meant to be.
You ask these questions as if you know what order everything should be in before it was created and that the order really matters. There is nothing wrong with the Genesis account- only your understanding of it and your applying naturalistic thinking to it from the sinful mind of a man.
"There is nothing wrong with the Genesis account- only your understanding of it and your applying naturalistic thinking to it from the sinful mind of a man."
Does this account show a logical god or rather a primitive human's explanation of how something occurred?
Even if I were an omnipotent builder, I would never install the cabinets before framing the house.
"He also (and I) rejects the rediculous and unsupported idea that humans evolved from apes."
First of all, it's more accurate to say that you don't believe other great apes and humans share a common ancestor.
There is overwhelming evidence to contradict your assertion. Not only does the fossil record support this, but also genetics, specifically the same ERVs on our genome as the chimpanzee's (I believe 14 of them).
I like bananas! There is another piece of evidence for you to support the idea we came from apes. I'll try and find more for you... wait... I got an itch under my arm and on top of my head... I have this strange craving for flies...
It cannot be over-emphasised just how well-established the science of evolution is, how much evidence there is for it, how modern and up-to-date that evidence is, and how fast, and to what depth, the science of evolution is enriching our understanding of the life on Earth over the last few billion years.
Trying to defend specialised religious beliefs against evolution is equivalent to trying to protect your house against a lava flow by standing in front of it!
Your perspective because you want to believe it. The work that's been done to date in the validity and historicity of scripture, the resurrection of Christ, and so on is just as compelling as you think the evidence is for evolution. If you want to think it's not I don't care either way. My faith remains intact and I am of sound mind and body.
"The work that's been done to date in the validity and historicity of scripture, the resurrection of Christ, and so on is just as compelling as you think the evidence is for evolution."
It's not compelling to the objective minded. The bible is full of mistakes and contradictions. And, the only accepted account of the resurrection is in the bible itself (which also contradicts itself by the way). Writings from historians such as Josephus are viewed by many to be a forgery.
"... the validity and historicity of scripture, the resurrection of Christ ... is just as compelling as you think the evidence is for evolution".
Many (perhaps most?) people who believe in Jesus & the Christian God accept evolution. It isn't your belief in "the resurrection of Christ" (etc) that provides the incompatibility.
It is your belief in some other parts of the text that is incompatible. Other Christians disagree. Why do YOU think those particular parts are right?
"I do, however, believe 100% that you can be a true Christian and still hold to a hybrid view of creation. I just don't think that that's a very exegetically sound or God-honoring way of viewing the Scriptures."- Yes, well put.
Evolution is an observable fact. There are many examples of flora and fauna speciation within last 150 years.
Google "observed instances of speciation".
And if evolution is how God created humans. And evolutionary psychology explains the behavior.
Where does the abominable sin come in.
At what point did the woman get the birthpains as punishment. Basically at what point did "original sin" hit this process of evolution for which Jesus had to die?
You say "If evolution is elevated to the status of a worldview of the ways things are, there is a direct conflict with Biblical faith. But, if evolution remains at the level of scientific biological hypothesis, it would seem that there is little reason for conflict".
I don't understand what you mean by the word "worldview". Evolution is an (evolving) explanation for the nature and history of living creatures.
Is THAT a worldview, or is the worldview that you reject something else?
Worldview- The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world. That goes past science and into a perspective where science becomes a religion and defenition of all aspects of life.
"Worldview- The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world."
The point of a scientific theory (such as gravity, relativity, evolution) is that it provides a way of looking at and interpreting an aspect of the universe. (... a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena ... capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation).
Are you applying the word "worldview" to ANY scientific theory?
"Theory"? Yes; when it is used beyond the realm of science and into things such as faith and the existence of God. Scientific law or observable constant such as gravity? No. A constant such as gravity has no moral implications and has not been used to refute any faith such as Christianity.
"Yes; when it is used beyond the realm of science and into things such as faith and the existence of God".
Many Christians accept evolution because they don't believe that it encroaches into such things.
In your case, what it appears to encroach into is not the existence of God, but your particular belief in some parts of the Old Testament that don't reflect on the existence of God.
(Is evolution incompatible with the New Testament?)
"That goes past science and into a perspective where science becomes a religion and defenition of all aspects of life."
Science isn't a DEFINITION of an aspect of anything. It comprises sets of theories, (sets of models, etc), each of which provides a way of looking at and interpreting an aspect of the universe. To qualify they must capable of being tested somehow.
The scope of science is what can be examined, interpreted, and tested, somehow. Its scope naturally extends over time.
"So, many people take that science and run with it into other aspects of life, such as faith, and use it as an answer to all of life".
Who are those people?
If you are criticising failed attempts at social engineering, then I agree. As an engineer, I say that most so-called social-engineering isn't real engineering.
But if you mean that you disagree with the universe that science describes, you have to cherry-pick science in a way that is independent of the quality of the science.
What do you mean "I reject the concept of evolution as an all-encompassing Theory?"
Evolution by natural selection is an explanation for the adaptation of living things. In effect, for their (apparent) "design". The science of evolution is building our understanding of the gradual changes from what existed billions of years ago to what we see today.
It describes the "algorithmic" process of the gradual change to the recipe for each species.
He (and I) is rejecting it as a worldview which goes past the science of evolution. He also (and I) rejects the rediculous and unsupported idea that humans evolved from apes.
"He ... is rejecting it as a worldview which goes past the science of evolution. He ... rejects the ... idea that humans evolved from apes."
You reject going PAST the science of evolution. But do you actually accept the science of evolution as it is?
The science of evolution makes it clear that we and chimps have a common ancestor a few million years ago. If you don't agree with that, you reject the science of evolution.
There are no get-outs, such as evolution without common descent.
"But do you actually accept the science of evolution as it is?"- I accept the fact that there is evidence to support the theory, but not enough to believe it as law. I also think that the mind of man is fallible and so are his methods in all areas of life including science. I would also say that any conclusion which disagrees with that of scripture is a misinterpretation of evidence or faulty evidence to begin with.
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
I thought the use of the word scientism was exactly correct. I'm an agnostic but I can see a world in which scientism is the chosen religion and that "scientist" is the new name of the high priest. Sciense and mathmatics take years of study before one can gain a working knowledge and because of this fact when we listen to scientists we believe their words without doubt. Also science can't stand up to its own testing- "the outcome of experiments are affected by the observer observing it" what!!!
telpro1 10 months ago
Integrating what? Science and philosophy?
Not sure about that. I can work from either standpoint, but only one of them points to tangible truth. Besides, you'd have huge trouble getting the language to work effectively. Different concepts of what truth is can be a difficult one to overcome. lol
hackenbollox 3 years ago
Beautifully phrased and completely meaningless.
hackenbollox 3 years ago
Science is not omnicompetent, I agree (and nor have I ever heard Dawkins espouse the notion that it is), but it aims to be. Whether or not it will ever reach that goal is another topic entirely, but it has provided the only useful answers available to us, and underestimating it is folly in the extreme.
hackenbollox 3 years ago
Yes, science is a human construct, but the phenomona it observes are not. Yes, science should be questioned, and so it is. Nothing is accepted within the scientific community until it has been subjected to intense scrutiny and experiment by the process of peer-review. In fact, the goal of science is not to prove things, but to disprove things. Every scientific process has the specific purpose of trying to find flaws in our theories. This forms the whole basis of our understanding.
hackenbollox 3 years ago
The major problem I see here is that the foundation of the scientific method means that god is completely unnecessary. If you apply the same rigorous analyses that must be applied to science to the existence of god, god fails at every turn, simply because the scientific method requires evidence. Since there is no evidence for the existence of god, god doesn't even stand up to the most cursory scrutiny.
Epic fail.
hackenbollox 3 years ago
So... science defines everything; even things which it has no business speaking to? Just because science cannot prove or disprove God does not mean God does not exist. In fact, it proves that science cannot speak to it because there is not enough evidence to make a scientific determination. You're a fool to think science disproves the existence of God. Evidence is not proof and much of the evidence you would use to disprove I would use to prove His existence. Science fails as much as man's mind.
bberchin 3 years ago
1. I don't believe I said that science defines everything.
2. There is nothing that should be outside the purview of science. That's the point of the scientist. Question everything, even what you think you know.
3. I didn't at any point say that science disproves the existence of god. What I said was that the same testing can't be applied, and that god is a logical improbability. Interesting that I can read your words, since science has failed.
Double fail.
hackenbollox 3 years ago
God is a logical improbability? Ok, from your perspective I can see how that is true. Understanding by faith with knowledge enables me to look at the evidence differently than you and realize there is no possibility that God doesn't exist. Your reasoning and logic is all based on the flawed and unreliable mind of man.
bberchin 3 years ago
No, it's all based on interpretation of the available evidence, none of which suggests the existence of a deity, unless you can provide me with some, of course.
hackenbollox 3 years ago
"A clear evolutionary-consistent fossil record"
Have you read the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ at TalkOrigins? It says "Last Update: March 17, 1997". It is a good starting point for anyone who doubts the quantity of transitional fossils found.
There are millions of existing species, hence millions of historical species. There has not been the time and money to find even a tiny fraction of those yet. (And why should we believe that more than a fraction actually fossilised?)
BarryCPearson 3 years ago
"And why should we believe that more than a fraction actually fossilised?"
This is a very good point. Most creationists don't understand that the conditions under which fossilization takes place are quite rare. Sometimes I'm amazed that we have as many as we do.
That being said, the fossil record is impressive, especially for the evolution of some species like whales.
crazypills2 3 years ago
Two books that illustrate different aspects of evolution, with recent evidence and understanding, are:
"Your Inner Fish" (Neil Shubin). Shows the predictive power of evolution. If you want a fossil of a particular historical species, identify the date, use geographical maps to find exposed strata of that age, then spend years (!) looking. You may be lucky before the money runs out.
"The Making of the Fittest" (Sean B Carroll). Very much a DNA-oriented exploration of the evolution tree.
BarryCPearson 3 years ago
You have to start somewhere. I suggest a book that provides a summary of your areas of interest, at the right depth. Try "Evolution" by Mark Ridley. It is an undergraduate textbook (so you probably won't learn enough to do research). It should provide the context.
It is nearly 750 large pages, with perhaps 700 references to other papers and books, etc. It is a good jumping-off point. (It is about 4 years old, and there have been 1000s of papers and other publications since then).
BarryCPearson 3 years ago
A useful example of how microevolution accumulates into macroevolution is the realisation of the "ring species".
Creatures are in a geographical ring, and adjacent creatures can normally inter-breed. But there is a discontinuity, where adjacent creatures don't inter-breed, and so are different species. So:
A inter-breeds with B, B with C .... Y with Z, but Z doesn't inter-breed with A.
In effect, B, C ... Y are transitional variants between A and Z. But they are all still living!
BarryCPearson 3 years ago
Excellent responses as usual Barry.
A common misconception of creationists is that evolution can't create "new information." This, however, is just not the case as seen recently in the following:
nylonase - bacteria able to digest nylon
Italian wall lizard - development of a new cecal valve
crazypills2 3 years ago
"A common misconception of creationists is that evolution can't create "new information.""
As well as your examples, there are lots more. See "The Making of the Fittest" by Sean B Carroll. He describes the DNA-level mechanisms that add new genes.
Example: a copying mistake duplicates genes for seeing one colour. It is then possible for one of the copies to evolve without destroying colour vision, which is still supported by the other. This enables a gene for an extra colour to evolve.
BarryCPearson 3 years ago
Since I was talking about evolution when I asked what was missing, I'll stay with that. Although my degree is in Mathematical Physics, I'm out-of-date, and I've been reading Victor J. Stenger to see what he has to say about the physics parts of your question. But he is not the only person worth reading.
I don't know how much you know about the basics of the science of evolution. If you don't know the basics, the existing evidence is likely to be unconvincing or meaningless.
BarryCPearson 3 years ago
There is a steady accumulation of evidence in all those areas. The evidence we have is vastly more than we had 50 years ago. It will be vastly more in 50 years time. How long are you prepared to wait? Are you in a hurry to place god into gaps?
How much effort are you prepared to spend on learning about the evidence? If I give you a fact out of context, you may dismiss it. Facts out of context are "stamp collecting", as Rutherford unfairly implied about all sciences except physics.
BarryCPearson 3 years ago
"There is a steady accumulation of evidence in all those areas."- Good one, Barry. In other words, the evidence is incomplete just like ATLpirate said. The same leaps have been made in the areas of biblical research and archeology, among other aspects of supporting the innerancy of scripture, the existence of God, the resurrection, and so forth.
bberchin 3 years ago
"Good one, Barry. In other words, the evidence is incomplete just like ATLpirate said."
The current evidence is more than sufficient to have confidence that "evolution by natural selection with common descent" is the process that resulted in the living things we see.
What we typically see is new evidence fleshing out details, such as refining the evolutionary tree, identifying where particular genes arose, arguing over relative importances of different mechanisms, etc.
BarryCPearson 3 years ago
The current evidence is more than sufficient to have confidence that God exists and is the Creator of our finite universe and us as humans as well as Christ's life, death on the cross, and resurrection.
bberchin 3 years ago
Chuckle!
BarryCPearson 3 years ago
Ditto!
bberchin 3 years ago
"He says He will MAKE him a suitable partner, not find."
My mistake, he wants to "make" a partner. So he made the animals and brought them to Adam, but there wasn't a suitable helper to be found.
crazypills2 3 years ago
"Again, present your proof that Genesis had multiple writers."
J, E, P, D, R (J & E in the creation story) is a commonly held hypothesis among scholars. If you're interested, the internet likely has much on this.
crazypills2 3 years ago
This destroys your entire argument...
Again with such absolute language like "destroys." This is the black/white, forceful language of religion. When you rebut something, it becomes fact. This is why you can make statements like arminans have no leg to stand on, etc.
Well, here's the context. God wants to find a partner for Adam, so he brings animals (that he just made) to him. But, he can't find a helper among them, so he decides to make woman.
And you "destroyed" this argument?
crazypills2 3 years ago
"The 'documentary hypothesis' has been thoroughly discredited by many conservative scholars."
"Thoroughly discredited?" Really? What exactly does thorough look like in this context?
crazypills2 3 years ago
"It would make no sense for God to say that Adam needs a help meet and then proceed to bring animals to Adam, among which he KNEW Adam would find no suitable help meet."
I agree this action is ridiculous if god already "knew." However, it makes perfect sense if you understand that, at this point in theology, god wasn't considered omniscient (notice Gen 3:9 as well).
crazypills2 3 years ago
"The animals already existed at that point as I've said many times."
Well, no matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it so.
"He brought them to Adam at this point to..."
If you read the context, animals were brought as possible partners. This is why it says "...But for Adam no suitable helper was found"
crazypills2 3 years ago
"I know you hate the Bible, and I know you hate God."
It is true that I am disgusted by the bible, especially the OT. However, I don't hate god, just like I don't hate pink unicorns.
"All you're doing is attempting to pick apart and critique something you know very little about."
Is your definition of knowledge simply agreeing with you?
The creation story is not the work of one author, but two. This is why they overlap and contradict.
crazypills2 3 years ago
You should focus on the last part of v18: I will "make" him a helper suitable for him." Now, why would god say he is going to do something, if he's already done it? Then comes verse 19 in which god makes possible helpers for him.
Gen 2:19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air
An interesting point here is that god thought an animal would be a suitable partner for Adam. You know, that's illegal in ALL 50 states, even Arkansas
crazypills2 3 years ago
"And just like that, your "contradiction" is gone."
Well, I'm glad you're doing some studying, and your response this time is much better than the last. However, you have not solved the contradiction. The key is in the preceding verse that says:
Gen 2:18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
crazypills2 3 years ago
I absolutely have a big problem with Atheism being taught in our schools. While Atheism is not itself a religion, it directly pertains to religious beliefs and any public school teacher suggesting to students that God does not exist is crossing the line.
Science on the other hand has nothing to do with religion and is an essential part of educating our children and preparing them for the vast world ahead.
It is up to parents to discuss religion with their children. Not the Government.
ogjimkenobi 3 years ago
You can believe whatever sort of nonsense you want, thats the beauty of America.
Just don't try to teach this sort of superstition in our classrooms to our children and its all good.
ogjimkenobi 3 years ago
Great series so far Brett. I really should check out this book. It presents great points which challenge a lot of atheistic views. Did you get this book from your pastor? :) God Bless
HailZeon57 3 years ago
Yes, he has been going through parts of it with our young people ages 17-25 once a month on Sunday nights. I've been involved with the group and it's been wonderful. You should see chapter 8- good stuff.
bberchin 3 years ago
Yeah, I'll try to find the book somewhere. Are you going to do a video series about chapter 8?
HailZeon57 3 years ago
Probably not, but I may mention a few points from it in the last part of this series.
bberchin 3 years ago
okay. Well, thanks for doing the series and I look forward to the final video of the series.
HailZeon57 3 years ago
There is no reason to oppose belief in a deity like there's no reason to oppose any other ignorance or delusion of others. Particularly when such a delusion actively seeks to force itself into the lives of everyone else.
Elithrion 3 years ago
"God created all lifeforms in a period of six, 24hr days just several thousand years ago".
Several thousand years ago? Dont you mean several billion years ago? Anyone who can, in this day and age still hold the earth as being a few thousand years old is in serious trouble.
As for science as a worldview, I would accept it to an extend, however complete rationality would make for a very sterile existence.
stagism 3 years ago
There is no concrete proof that the earth is billions of years old. We cannot even rely on the dating practices used in the evidence for such a view. Scientifically, the age of the earth cannot be decisively determined because it is not demonstrable. We were not there! The best evidence we have is in scripture- 'yôm' as well as geneological and other recorded historical data in scripture.
bberchin 3 years ago
"There is no concrete proof that the earth is billions of years old."
The evidence that the earth is over 6,000 years is overwhelming Brett. Heck, just tree rings alone show that the earth is over 11,000 years old. And, radiometric dating shows that it's 4.5 billion years old. Regardless of what creationists say, this dating method is accurate. There are at least six forms of radiometric dating and more than one form is used in each instance.
crazypills2 3 years ago
Oh my, its truly sad to see a rejection of overwhelming scientific evidence in the 21st century. ):
stagism 3 years ago
Oh my, its truly sad to see a rejection of overwhelming spiritual evidence in the 21st century. :(
bberchin 3 years ago
lol.
stagism 3 years ago
I think they heard me down the street when I posted the first one above. That lol was literal!
bberchin 3 years ago
Since we're talking about Genesis and stars, I recommend that everyone watch this youtube video about the Hubble Deep Field (if you haven't already seen it). It's only 6 1/2 minutes long and well worth it. I promise you will feel humbled.
Theists and atheists will both enjoy.
watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw
crazypills2 3 years ago
"Again, none of this is a contradiction; it's merely a more detailed account of the formation of both Adam and (later) Eve."
Are you kidding? In the first chapter, the birds were created before Adam (birds on 3rd day, man on 6th day) but in the second chapter they were created after Adam.
There is no way to get around this; I have the text in front of me. Please respond with chapter and verse reference how I am wrong.
crazypills2 3 years ago
"What's the problem here?"
Gen 1:16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.
The moon is described as a great light, not something that reflects light. Oh, and I like that the writer throws in the stars as almost an afterthought. There are an estimated 70 sextrillion stars in our universe (7 with 22 zeros). Is this really an, "oh yea I almost forgot" item?
crazypills2 3 years ago
The second chapter does not contradict the first chapter..."
I hate it when christians don't read their own book.
Gen 1:20 god made birds on the 3rd day before the animals and man
Gen 1:25 god made animals on the 6th day before man
Gen 1:26 god made man on the 6th day after the animals
Gen 2:7 god made man before the birds and animals
Gen 2:19 god made beasts of the earth and birds of the air after man
crazypills2 3 years ago
1) He's reading large chunks, to be with no orientation, so it becomes boring.
2) Maybe there is. Perhaps the already converted likes it, but if he wants to challenge atheists/agnostics belief, he should sharpen his arguments.. and not just read from a book for 10 minute straight.
3) I want to watch it. The subject is interesting, but 5 videos in a row reading straight from a book just gets tiring.
Svankmajer 3 years ago
"but 5 videos in a row reading straight from a book just gets tiring."- Get some sleep.
bberchin 3 years ago
"Maybe he did it that way just to mess with you, crazypills. Haha. ;)"
I'll take your response that god is illogical and incompetent as an answer for most of the questions. However, this still doesn't explain the differing order of creation accounts in Gen 1 & 2, and why the moon is called a light.
crazypills2 3 years ago
Why don't you
1) Read the book
2) Note the good points for yourself
3) Present them to us in your own words. Using short quotes if you must, but not overdoing it.
Its pretty crazy that you think anyone would be interested in you sitting there and reading from a book. IN ITS ENTIRITY. This is a waste of time.
Svankmajer 3 years ago
Thank you, but I'm only reading through 1 chapter and he puts some things better than I can and gives me a good starting point to expand on other points. Also, if no one is interested then why did you watch and hundreds of others are watching? If you think it's a waste of time then make better use of your time and don't come back.
bberchin 3 years ago
The videos, subject and intention isn't a waste of time. I just wished you'd sharpened your points and prepared the videos more. Thats all. Don't take that as an insult, its not meant to be.
Svankmajer 3 years ago
Then I won't take it as such. Thanks. :)
bberchin 3 years ago
"...taking Genesis 1 literally is the most natural way of "interpreting" the chapter."
Ok, a couple of questions if it's literal:
Why did god create the earth before the sun, requiring that he create a temporary gravity to hold the earth in place?
Why did he create a temporary light instead of just creating the sun?
Why did he create plants before the sun?
Why is the moon called a light?
Why is there a different order in the accounts of creation in Gen 1 & 2?
crazypills2 3 years ago
You ask these questions as if you know what order everything should be in before it was created and that the order really matters. There is nothing wrong with the Genesis account- only your understanding of it and your applying naturalistic thinking to it from the sinful mind of a man.
bberchin 3 years ago
"There is nothing wrong with the Genesis account- only your understanding of it and your applying naturalistic thinking to it from the sinful mind of a man."
Does this account show a logical god or rather a primitive human's explanation of how something occurred?
Even if I were an omnipotent builder, I would never install the cabinets before framing the house.
crazypills2 3 years ago
"He also (and I) rejects the rediculous and unsupported idea that humans evolved from apes."
First of all, it's more accurate to say that you don't believe other great apes and humans share a common ancestor.
There is overwhelming evidence to contradict your assertion. Not only does the fossil record support this, but also genetics, specifically the same ERVs on our genome as the chimpanzee's (I believe 14 of them).
crazypills2 3 years ago
Do you like bananas? lol
bberchin 3 years ago
"Do you like bananas? lol"
I do, but not as much as Ray Comfort....
crazypills2 3 years ago
I like bananas! There is another piece of evidence for you to support the idea we came from apes. I'll try and find more for you... wait... I got an itch under my arm and on top of my head... I have this strange craving for flies...
bberchin 3 years ago
It cannot be over-emphasised just how well-established the science of evolution is, how much evidence there is for it, how modern and up-to-date that evidence is, and how fast, and to what depth, the science of evolution is enriching our understanding of the life on Earth over the last few billion years.
Trying to defend specialised religious beliefs against evolution is equivalent to trying to protect your house against a lava flow by standing in front of it!
BarryCPearson 3 years ago
Your perspective because you want to believe it. The work that's been done to date in the validity and historicity of scripture, the resurrection of Christ, and so on is just as compelling as you think the evidence is for evolution. If you want to think it's not I don't care either way. My faith remains intact and I am of sound mind and body.
bberchin 3 years ago
"The work that's been done to date in the validity and historicity of scripture, the resurrection of Christ, and so on is just as compelling as you think the evidence is for evolution."
It's not compelling to the objective minded. The bible is full of mistakes and contradictions. And, the only accepted account of the resurrection is in the bible itself (which also contradicts itself by the way). Writings from historians such as Josephus are viewed by many to be a forgery.
crazypills2 3 years ago
"... the validity and historicity of scripture, the resurrection of Christ ... is just as compelling as you think the evidence is for evolution".
Many (perhaps most?) people who believe in Jesus & the Christian God accept evolution. It isn't your belief in "the resurrection of Christ" (etc) that provides the incompatibility.
It is your belief in some other parts of the text that is incompatible. Other Christians disagree. Why do YOU think those particular parts are right?
BarryCPearson 3 years ago
"I do, however, believe 100% that you can be a true Christian and still hold to a hybrid view of creation. I just don't think that that's a very exegetically sound or God-honoring way of viewing the Scriptures."- Yes, well put.
bberchin 3 years ago
I'm not sure I agree with him on that point either, but I am going to look at the other couplets he cited and see if there is a correlation.
bberchin 3 years ago
Yes, a point I was making with crazypills2 which he didn't seem to get. God bless, brother.
bberchin 3 years ago
Evolution is an observable fact. There are many examples of flora and fauna speciation within last 150 years.
Google "observed instances of speciation".
And if evolution is how God created humans. And evolutionary psychology explains the behavior.
Where does the abominable sin come in.
At what point did the woman get the birthpains as punishment. Basically at what point did "original sin" hit this process of evolution for which Jesus had to die?
CognosSquare 3 years ago
Crap.
Obfuscates the issues.
Get to the bottom line.
Don't make up words like "scientism".
Show me some evidence for your beliefs.
I am not an opponent of Christ because he doesn't exist.
I don't believe in magical beings who write books for people.
Grow up. Religion is just fairy tales for adults.
Prove me wrong if you can.
I'm still waiting.....
neotropic9 3 years ago
Keep waiting...
bberchin 3 years ago
You say "If evolution is elevated to the status of a worldview of the ways things are, there is a direct conflict with Biblical faith. But, if evolution remains at the level of scientific biological hypothesis, it would seem that there is little reason for conflict".
I don't understand what you mean by the word "worldview". Evolution is an (evolving) explanation for the nature and history of living creatures.
Is THAT a worldview, or is the worldview that you reject something else?
BarryCPearson 3 years ago
Worldview- The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world. That goes past science and into a perspective where science becomes a religion and defenition of all aspects of life.
bberchin 3 years ago
"Worldview- The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world."
The point of a scientific theory (such as gravity, relativity, evolution) is that it provides a way of looking at and interpreting an aspect of the universe. (... a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena ... capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation).
Are you applying the word "worldview" to ANY scientific theory?
BarryCPearson 3 years ago
"Theory"? Yes; when it is used beyond the realm of science and into things such as faith and the existence of God. Scientific law or observable constant such as gravity? No. A constant such as gravity has no moral implications and has not been used to refute any faith such as Christianity.
bberchin 3 years ago
"Yes; when it is used beyond the realm of science and into things such as faith and the existence of God".
Many Christians accept evolution because they don't believe that it encroaches into such things.
In your case, what it appears to encroach into is not the existence of God, but your particular belief in some parts of the Old Testament that don't reflect on the existence of God.
(Is evolution incompatible with the New Testament?)
BarryCPearson 3 years ago
"That goes past science and into a perspective where science becomes a religion and defenition of all aspects of life."
Science isn't a DEFINITION of an aspect of anything. It comprises sets of theories, (sets of models, etc), each of which provides a way of looking at and interpreting an aspect of the universe. To qualify they must capable of being tested somehow.
The scope of science is what can be examined, interpreted, and tested, somehow. Its scope naturally extends over time.
BarryCPearson 3 years ago
Yes. So, many people take that science and run with it into other aspects of life, such as faith, and use it as an answer to all of life.
bberchin 3 years ago
"So, many people take that science and run with it into other aspects of life, such as faith, and use it as an answer to all of life".
Who are those people?
If you are criticising failed attempts at social engineering, then I agree. As an engineer, I say that most so-called social-engineering isn't real engineering.
But if you mean that you disagree with the universe that science describes, you have to cherry-pick science in a way that is independent of the quality of the science.
BarryCPearson 3 years ago
What do you mean "I reject the concept of evolution as an all-encompassing Theory?"
Evolution by natural selection is an explanation for the adaptation of living things. In effect, for their (apparent) "design". The science of evolution is building our understanding of the gradual changes from what existed billions of years ago to what we see today.
It describes the "algorithmic" process of the gradual change to the recipe for each species.
Are you rejecting that or something else?
BarryCPearson 3 years ago
He (and I) is rejecting it as a worldview which goes past the science of evolution. He also (and I) rejects the rediculous and unsupported idea that humans evolved from apes.
bberchin 3 years ago
"He ... is rejecting it as a worldview which goes past the science of evolution. He ... rejects the ... idea that humans evolved from apes."
You reject going PAST the science of evolution. But do you actually accept the science of evolution as it is?
The science of evolution makes it clear that we and chimps have a common ancestor a few million years ago. If you don't agree with that, you reject the science of evolution.
There are no get-outs, such as evolution without common descent.
BarryCPearson 3 years ago
"But do you actually accept the science of evolution as it is?"- I accept the fact that there is evidence to support the theory, but not enough to believe it as law. I also think that the mind of man is fallible and so are his methods in all areas of life including science. I would also say that any conclusion which disagrees with that of scripture is a misinterpretation of evidence or faulty evidence to begin with.
bberchin 3 years ago
"I accept the fact that there is evidence to support the theory, but not enough to believe it as law."
Do you honestly know enough about what evidence exists to be able to make a judgment about whether there is enough?
How much would be enough? What is missing?
BarryCPearson 3 years ago