 |
|
|
|
 Catholics attend Mass in Seoul, South Korea. When Pope Francis visits the country this week, he will find a thriving Catholic community .
August 12th, 2014
05:08 PM ET
Why South Korea could be the church of futureOpinion by Candida Moss, special to CNN [twitter-follow screen_name='CandidaMoss'] (CNN) – When Pope Francis arrives in South Korea on Wednesday for a five-day visit, he’ll get a look at just the kind of church he’s been trying to create worldwide. The trip, planned to coincide with Asia Youth Day, marks the first time a pope has visited the country since 1989, and is part of a new papal focus on globalization in general and on Asia in particular. (Francis plans to visit Sri Lanka, the Philippines and Japan in January.) The time has long passed that the Catholic Church is elderly white men and women in European enclaves. The last papal conclave and the election of the first Latin American Pope raised awareness of the Catholic Church’s growing presence in Africa, but Asian Christianity was hardly mentioned at all. Even if it is rarely discussed in the media, Korean Catholicism is among the most vibrant in the world. Here are five reasons South Korea might be the future of Catholic Church. 1. It’s growing. Catholics make up almost 11% of South Korea’s 50 million population. This may seem like a small percentage, but consider this: In 1960, they only made up 2%. In contrast to Europe, the majority of South Korean Catholics – as is the broader population of the region – are young. Vocations to the ministry are also strong. At the end of 2013, South Korea’s 5.4 million Catholics were served by 4,261 priests, with a further 1,489 seminarians in the pipeline, according to church statistics. In other words, not only is Christianity growing in South Korea, but it’s increasing in popularity among young people. And, in contrast to Europe and the United States, there are enough priests and seminarians to minister to this expanding group. 2. It’s rich. Catholics in South Korea are increasingly prosperous. In an interview with Catholic News Service, Bishop William McNaughton, who served as the first bishop of Inchon from 1962 until 2002, recalled that when he arrived in the country, most of his congregation was poor. Now, he says, they wealthier than average. While the economic prospects of Catholics have undoubtedly risen with those of South Korea as a whole, McNaughton attributes the financial success of Catholics there to the excellence of Catholic education. Whether or not the prosperity of Korean Catholics is because of Catholic education or regional economic growth is less important than the encouraging contrast it forms to the church in other parts of the world. Church attendance in Europe and the United States has been declining for decades. Meanwhile, in poorer, developing countries, the church has expanded and taken on an increasingly fundamentalist character. The decline of the Catholic Church in wealthy countries is often linked to the rise of secularism, access to higher education and economic growth. The fear is that as people acquire more education and money, they no longer need God. This doesn’t seem to be the case in South Korea, where wealth, education and church expansion continue to go together. 3. It competes in a tough environment. Some commentators have speculated that Christianity in South Korea succeeds because of the spirituality in the region. That’s not exactly true. In 2005, nearly half the population describe themselves are “irreligious.” The region has a rich religious history, but today South Korea is among the most secular countries in the world. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI identified the “secular state” as one of the chief threats to the Catholic Church in the 21st century, crediting it as one of the causes of declining church attendance in Europe. That Catholicism continues to flourish in a culture that is broadly speaking nonreligious should encourage church leaders. It proves it can be done. 4. It’s self-supporting. The history of Christianity on the Korean Peninsula involves not only growth and increased prosperity, but also persecution and martyrdom. Christianity was legalized in then-unified Korea only in 1886 and for much of that time has been largely self-sufficient. In the wake of World War II, the country was divided in the communist North and the capitalistic South in 1945. The CIA Factbook notes that autonomous religious activities are "now almost nonexistent" in North Korea. The geographical distance from the Vatican has allowed local bishops to have more autonomy and decentralized the church. As Tom Fox, author of “Pentecost in Asia,” has said, “the starting point of the Asian church has always been the local church.” This is the model of local governance and evangelization that Pope Francis has tried to encourage and promote in the church in general. 5. It’s committed to social justice. Korea was largely evangelized by lay activists, not organized missionary campaigns. This history gives the current church in South Korea an independent streak. Masses end with instructions to “evangelize the world” rather than return home, a call that local Catholics take to heart. This missionary activity is matched by a focus on improving the living conditions their troubled neighbors in North Korea. That charity endears the Catholic Church to both religious and nonreligious South Koreans, who might otherwise be suspicious. It’s for all these reasons that Francis told Il Messaggero in June that “the church in Asia holds great promise.” In the Pope’s mind, it seems, the South Korean example may hold the secret to the future of the Catholic Church.
Next entry »5 ways Pope Francis is tougher than you think
« Previous entryDramatic rescue as Yazidis flee ISIS
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
FALLACIES OF EVOLUTION
Number 6
– 6 – Fallacy of Dating. The argument from age (dating fallacy) occurs when something is declared to be so simply by giving it an old date!
All through the pages of this set of books we have repeatedly observed examples of the fallacy of proving evolution simply by dating various substances as very ancient.
(1) Radioactive and other dating techniques are used to provide notoriously inaccurate dates, which are then declared to be correct. These dates are then offered as evidence that evolutionary theory must be true. Yet, not only are the dates inaccurate, but the ancientness of such dates can never provide evidence of biological evolution; only trans-species fossil evidence from the past, and natural selection and mutational evidence today, can provide that—and both have signally failed to do so.
(2) Without any reason for doing so, fossils and sedimentary strata have been arbitrarily assigned special ancient dates in the hope that this will heighten the impression that there is something "scientific" about evolutionary claims. Yet those fal-lacious dates provide us with no evidence of biological evolution.
(3) Very ancient dates have been arbitrarily assigned to paleomagnetic findings, on the basis of the erroneous dates claimed for fossils and strata. But, here again, the resultant dates are not evidence for biological evolution
– Fallacies of Evolution 1-6, Evolution Encyclopedia
Please get help.
6 posts of the same thing=TROLL
Don't you have a bridge to get back under?
None so blind as those that will not see.
It is strange to see someone so fixed in their beliefs. So fixed that it is impossible to learn. It is something almost as bad as brain death, it's mind death. I wonder if any medicine is strong enough to fix that?
As we value and preserve rare languages, perhaps we should preserve strange mindsets, philosophies, even religions. You never know what might be useful down the road.
As an academic discipline, we do. Sociologists, psychologists, etc. do that and write books about them. In terms of an individual that is rigidly programmed, I'd rather see them open up than continue to be imprisoned in their own minds. I couldn't agree with 'studying' them to learn about their condition. But that isn't a choice for me.
Just curious. Why is it not a choice?
Are the dates you mention above more or less accurate (when expressed as a percentage) than the value of PI in The Babble, and is the uncertainty significant to the bigger point?
FALLACIES OF EVOLUTION
Number 5
– 5 – Argumentum ad Populum. This is an argument addressed "to the people." This occurs when popular feelings are pandered to, when people are told what they want to hear—and what they are told is declared to be a "scientific fact."
(1) "Science is progressive and is itself evolutionary"
(2) "Evolution is the belief of moderns. "
(3) "Everyone that is educated believes this theory."
An implication of much of the evolutionary teaching is that our race has raised itself by its own bootstraps and we will eventually be gods, knowing and doing every possible thing, including inter-galactic space travel. All this appeals to the public, and they are assured that evolution must be true. At least, they surely hope so.
How's that paper coming to support your creationism story? Is it ready for peer-review yet? Tell us why is it you need to ATTEMPT to debunk the FACTUAL HARD-CORE EVIDENCE ON EVOLUTION when the article doesn't pertain to that topic. Have you thought about going back and completing high school? It might actually help you open your mind or is ignorance that blissful?
FALLACIES OF EVOLUTION
Number 4
– 4 – False Comparisons. When two items are wrongly compared in an argument, this fallacy occurs.
The peppered moth argument is an example of this. The one species of moth comes in two different colors. "Because birds ate the dark ones on light-bark trees before the 1850s, and have tended to eat the light ones on dark-bark trees since then, therefore this is a powerful evidence that one type of creature evolves into a different type." But in the case of the moths, they are both sub-species of the same peppered moth, and both sub-species existed before 1800, and today both sub-species still exist. Changes within species does not const-itute evolution, and in regard to peppered moths, no change within species has occurred, much less across species.
From what I can see, you're making too many assumptions there. You'll need to provide sources for the claims you make here.
FALLACIES OF EVOLUTION
Number 3
-3 – Misuse of Authority. This error is similar to the one just mentioned. "Because we are the authorities on the matter, therefore what we say is correct. "
The public is asked to ‘just let the scientists decide for you" as to the truth about evolution. But what is needed is evidence, not statements of assurance by scientists. After 150 years of searching for evidence in support of evolution, we need assurance from facts, not assurance from the men searching for the facts. (See chapter 31.)
Evolutionists tell us that "mutations are the cause of beneficial changes in species, and, ultimately, changes across species. This is so, "we are told, "because scientists are sure it is so. " But the evidence does not support the claim. Not one mutation in a million is beneficial, so how could mutations produce useful change—since literally billions of beneficial—and closely inter-related mutations would be needed in order to produce a new species.
Well one looks at the evidence presented by those that claim to be in authority and accept it or deny it. The vast majority of people believe the claims made by most evolutionary biologists are reasonable. This process goes for anything we consider in life. Rather than complaining, maybe once you could try to provide evidence that can refute the scientific claims – that is, without obviously misrepresenting what you are quoting which seems to be your modus operandi.
FALLACIES OF EVOLUTION
Number 2
-2 – Begging the Question. This fallacy occurs when a person presents his own assurance that he is telling the truth as the reason why his statement is true.
(1) "I have been a scientist all my life, and I can tell you that evolution is true."
(2) "Evolution has been fully vindicated and proven by science; I have witnessed this over and over again all my life."
(3) "You can take my word for it, evolution is true."
Repeatedly, in this set of books, we have observed instances of this blockade to careful thinking. Over and over again, evolutionists have maintained in articles and speeches that evolution has been fully proven, and is accepted universally by all reputable scientists. We are to believe these statements because the one telling us is supposed to be a renowned scientist. No other evidence is given, for, indeed, no other evidence for such statements dare be given.
Well, we do see this from some people in just about any field you can name. Religious philosophy is no exception for example. But I don't see most scientists bragging this way.
FALLACIES OF EVOLUTION
Number 1
– 1 – Fallacy of Relevance. The argument from irrelevance occurs when the conclusion depends on evidence that does not apply to the same point. The next paragraph would be a true statement:
"Scientists do not yet understand the function of certain body organs. In the past, there were large numbers of organs whose purpose was not known; today there are but few. Each decade more and more information has been obtained about various body organs. The obvious conclusion from those facts is that if organic functions are not known, it will only be a matter of time before further research discloses those functions."
In contrast, evolutionists irrelevantly contend that all such organs lack functions entirely! They declare that such organs have not had any functions for thousands of years, and are leftovers from our animal ancestors! That conclusion bears no relation to the facts. A hundred years ago the functions of dozens of organs were unknown. Gradually functions were found; today nearly all human organs have known functions. Yet certain evolutionists continue to declare that those organs are inherently functionless.
"evolutionists irrelevantly contend that all such organs lack functions entirely"
Scot – what evidence can you provide to support this claim?
If Darwin was right, you will probably figure it out in a few million years.
Well we know Darwin was right, it might take you a few more million years to finally stop being an idiot and realize that!
And again, The Apostles' Creed to bring every Christian into the world of rational thinking:
The Apostles' Creed 2014 (updated by yours truly based on the studies of NT historians and theologians of the past 200 years)
Should I believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven
and said god if he/she/it exists resides in an unproven,
human-created, spirit state of bliss called heaven?????
I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
girl named Mary. (Some say he was a mamzer.)
Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,
He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
Jerusalem.
Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
many semi-fiction writers. A bodily resurrection and
ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.
Amen
(references used have been previously given.)
What a sad, sad creature you are. At least we theists devote our lives to serving the God we believe is real. You, on the other hand, by all appearances, spend a great deal of effort thrashing against a being which you do not even believe ever existed. I am well aware that you will say that you are actually just raging against the policies of the religious majority to impinge on your precious freedoms (though I assume you also deny the reality of human free will, but whatever). In that case, though, why not campaign for proper psychiatric intervention by the state? Or would that be too consistent, and ultimately fascist, of you?
You are a poor rep for Christians. Not following the Golden Rule here proves how poor of a rep you are.
Don't go around judging when Christians use their belief to justify lots of crazy things.
cod:
"spend a great deal of effort thrashing against a being which you do not even believe ever existed."
" (though I assume you also deny the reality of human free will, but whatever). "
1) we rail against the bigotry and hate that is spewed from the followers of these bronze age myths, not your imaginary friend.
2) religion having an "all-knowing, all-powerful, all present" super being; negates "free will"
humans having the ability to choose their own destiny would seriously keep your god busy changing his plans.
Thoughts for those who live by fate – B.Bennett CBC
If sickness and suffering is God’s preordained will, why did Jesus commission the church to go into all the world and lay hands on the sick that they might recover? If sickness is a blessing for God’s children, why does James ask if there are “any sick among you?”, and then give the formula for receiving healing?
If God has already determined who will be saved and who will be lost and there is nothing that anyone can do about it, why does He commission the church to go into all the world and preach the gospel and make disciples of all nations? Isn’t that a waste of time since their eternal destiny is already determined?
If God has foreordained who is saved and who is lost, then why does Paul say “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?” (Rom 10:14)
If it is impossible to resist the grace of God, why does Stephen say: “Ye stiffnecked and uncircu.mcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.” (Acts 7:51)
Why are we exhorted to “Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.” (James 4:7) If there is no such thing as personal choice, and if the devil only does God’s will, then resisting him would be resisting God.
What is the point of prayer if all things are predetermined and there is nothing man can do to change anything? Why does James say, “The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much” (James 5:16). What does fervent prayer avail?
Why did Jesus rebuke those of little faith and commend those of great faith if their faith has nothing to do with them but has been predetermined by God? Is it right to rebuke the fearful if their fear has been programmed into them?
What point is there in asking, seeking and knocking if our prayers can change nothing. If my condition in life is predetermined, what point is there in trying to improve my situation through prayer?
If man has no will and is not free to obey or disobey God, then why does God exhort the following: “I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:” Deut 30:19
How many who believe that God is in control of all things are brave enough to run a search of the word “if” in the New Testament and see how many of God’s promises are conditional and determined by man’s choice and response?
New Man I agree I've always thought that god was iffy at best
Viruses like Ebola, all the plagues, all birth defects, genetic disorders, cancer – all that pre-ordained by the God who is love.
I can honestly say I do not know anyone who believes that all of that is preordained and I know a fairly large number of Christians.
Did God create Ebola?
If so why? What was it's purpose in his 'creation'.
I don't know the answer to that question. But I would speculate that He did not create it. I would suspect, like many viruses, bacteria and so on, it mutated from something else–another virus I suppose.
"I would suspect, like many viruses, bacteria and so on, it mutated from something else–another virus I suppose."
------------------
I'm fairly sure it did.
The question is about the nature of God.
Empirically his 'creation' allows such things to happen. We observe them. We conclude that God (presumably) does not intervene. So is the non-intervention deliberate? Then he is cruel, callous or both. If it is not deliberate, then God is either not omnipotent (he can't help) or is completely uncaring (doesn't want to help).
The deist construct is the latter. The creator winds up the master spring of existence and let's it run it's course without further intervention with complete disinterest as to what happens.
Most pantheistic religions hold that such things (disease, natural disasters etc) are deliberate acts of God(s). The Gods are cruel and capricious – hence the desire to offer them sacrifices so they will go mess with someone who doesn't offer up sacrifices.
The notion of the Abrahamic, anthropomorphic personal God is conflicted with contradictions: Jesus loves you but gives innocent young children cancer. There are no satisfactory philosophical answers to this contradiction.
GOP,
"The question is about the nature of God." Let's start with God is Love. He wants the best for us. But if we choose otherwise, He is not going to stop us. Let's continue the analogy of parent and children although it is not perfect, as no analogy is perfect. If you tell your child, don't do drugs, they are bad for you. Suppose your child decides to do drugs, get in deep, commits a felony, or more, and destroys his/her life. Yet they do not change their ways. Do you invite them back into a family that has many other members who have not gone that direction? I think not.
"Empirically his 'creation' allows such things to happen. We observe them. We conclude that God (presumably) does not intervene."
I would not presume that He does not intervene unless you mean that he should just with one stroke eliminate all evil, disease, etc. If he did that he would eliminate the above child. That is not love. Love is being willing to stand the pain and wait for a change in people. I am not saying He could not. I am saying that is not the best answer. You are only looking at the temporal, material world. God is looking at the eternal, spiritual world as well. I know you don't believe in the latter, and so this seems unfair and even cruel. But that is not the case. On the other hand, I do believe He intervenes in individual cases and in personal ways.
"The deist construct is the latter"
I am not a Deist, so I can't really speak to this issue.
"Most pantheistic religions hold . . . "
I am not a pantheist, so I cannot speak to that issue.
"The notion of the Abrahamic, anthropomorphic personal God is conflicted with contradictions: Jesus loves you but gives innocent young children cancer. There are no satisfactory philosophical answers to this contradiction."
Well, perhaps not to your satisfaction. But I think I can speak to this issue. Jesus loves little children and gives them a way out. He DOES NOT "give" them cancer. I know that because I fought cancer and won with the help of God and some very fine physicians and surgeons. My cancer was the result of mankind's misdeed, I believe. ALL of the physicians who treated my case could not believe that I had never smoked. My particular kind of cancer cam ONLY as a result of smoking, working in a paint factory, or some similar chemical related industry. At least that is what I was told. I cannot count the number of doctors and nurses that asked for confirmation either from me or my wife of the fact that I did not smoke.
What I believe happened is that I grew up in a family where my stepfather smoked at least 2 packs of camels or Lucky Strikes a day. I lived with him for about 8-9 years before I moved out and got married. That, I believe, was the cause of my cancer. Talk about "giving" children cancer? Praise God I am cancer free and have been for nearly nine years.
There were many events during my illness (as well as throughout my life) that lead me to praise God for His intervention. So, this is very personal for me. It is not just theoretical, theological or philosophical.
I do hope this helps.
@Steve,
I am delighted to hear that with your cancer encounter you are a survivor. Certainly some cancers are clearly environmental – such as those related to chemicals like tobacco smoke, or asbestos, etc. I completely understand why you might ascribe your cure, at least in part, to prayer.
I have met many very young children who had cancer. Some lived, some died. They were not exposed in any obvious way to carcinogens and the medical profession's answer to the root cause of most of these childhood cancers is "we don't know why" or a politer version of "sh.t happens". Lots of people prayed for the children who lived and for the children who died. In my observation prayer did not correlate with the outcome.
But we could use the same arguments for anything not self-inflicted that shortens a life – random accident, natural disaster and as we have discussed disease. They afflict the devout and the non-believer alike. I do not understand why if "God loves us and wants us to be happy" life is full of so much arbitrary suffering – and I don't accept the 'everyone is a sinner / wages of sin' argument since the truly innocent (young children) are subjected to this as much as those above the age of reason.
The Buddhists have perhaps the best perspective on this of all major religions. The first noble truth is that "there is suffering".
New-man, those are deep questions that are worthy of longer answers than can be provided here. Each question could take a full sermon to cover. But in brief, make no mistake – God does not and cannot surrender any of His sovereignty to any creature, but He does desire for us to align ourselves with His will, to work to grow closer to Him, to discover the wonders of His creation, to become vehicles for His grace and revelation to others.
Satan and evil are opponents of God, but they operate only within the bounds permitted by God, and in the end their course and destruction affirms and exalts God's righteousness, love, glory and power. God loves us and created us in His image with a spiritual existence and will of our own, but our free choice has been corrupted by sin brought to man by Satan through Adam, and only can be restored by God's grace, and a renewed mind sees the wise choice to submit to Christ Jesus. But still for now we remain in a fallen world in our fallen nature, and we cannot be fully delivered from evil and sanctified until our death frees us from the consequence of sin, if we are in Christ who takes our punishment and covers us with His righteousness. God does not look the other way from some sins, or weigh our sins against our good deeds; God's infinite and eternal purity cannot tolerate one speck of imperfection, or else He would not be God. No man who enters the Kingdom of Heaven will say he deserves such a gift. Only Christ provides the way to a restored relationship with God. To say otherwise, to say man can earn entry into heaven, to say God's choices are subject to actions of man, is to diminish God's nature and the person and work of Christ, and is to assert there is a higher authority than God, and such a theology quickly unravels.
I bet you could not write that in plain English..what a load of tosh..
MadeFromDirt,
thanks for taking the time to give a thoughtful reply. Please excuse the late response. While we do agree on most issues, there is some departure on a few.
I agree with you that God is sovereign. However, where we disagree is perhaps in it's meaning and especially in the earth realm.
=>– "...God does not and cannot surrender any of His sovereignty to any creature..."
While I understand what you're saying here, as Barry puts it "whatever God purposed for Adam and his offspring before sin, is still His purpose today after the redemptive work of Jesus."
Gen 1:26 tells us that purpose. God created man in His own image... and blessed them, and said be fruitful and multiply, replenish the earth and subdue it and have dominion over it.
Ps 8:4 further tells us. What is man that you are mindful of him... and you have crowned him with glory and honor, you [God] have made him to HAVE DOMINION over the works of his hands. YOU have put ALL THINGS under his feet.
So there you have the witness of 2 testifying that we've been given dominion over ALL THINGS.
But most intriguing, interesting, almost unbelievable is the following.
Ps 115:16 The heaven, even the heavens are the Lords but the earth He has GIVEN to the children of men.
The word given here means = assigned
So God has assigned the earth to us. Before sin, He expected man to take over this dominion of the this earth, to rule it, to subdue it, replenish it, have dominion over it.
Mark 13:34 For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left His house and GAVE authority to His servants and to every man in His work and commanded his porter to watch.
[The above was taken from Barry's latest teaching and if you're interested it can be found here: I removed the word youtube
https://www.com/watch?v=okNiukjQkI8
I agree that "Satan and evil are opponents of God," however I think
"they operate only within the bounds permitted by us... not God; because as mentioned above, God gave the earth to man. He even told us we should pray that HIS will be done here on earth as it is in heaven. There's no operation of evil within the bounds that God permit in heaven. We have to first realize, know, & understand our authority and act on it, so that whatever we bind here on earth is bind in the heavens, and whatever we loose here on earth will also be loosed in the heavens. See, it's all up to us... we have to do something.
I always ask this question "why is it that Jesus had to come as a man... why is it that God must always have a covenant with a man before He does anything in the earth.?
Here's another great article by Andrew Wommack on the: http://www.awmi.net/extra/article/sovereignty_god
A person who is born-again is perfect in their spirit. Yes, their bodies remain the same, and their mind is continuously being renewed, but in their spirit they are totally perfect.
http://www.awmi.net/extra/article/spirit_soul
I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
New-man, we don't disagree, but we have a different emphasis. I just caution you to not inflate man's dominion over earth as anything more than what it is. We do not control forces of nature, or the powers of the air. And as massive and wonderful as this universe is, it is diminutive in God's sight, and He will wrap it up and eliminate it at His chosen time for the end of man's physical history. But the good news is He will place His people delivered through this fallen creation solely by Christ Jesus into entirely new creations forever.
MadeFromDirt,
well said and thank you.
You've quoted one of my favorite lines in the Bible... God will roll up this universe as an old garment and cast it off.
Blessings!
The real question is why did Jebus put an "s" in the word "lisp" ?
Now that is funny!
Here are my responses, up to a point. Beyond that point it appears that the answers would all be the same.
Here are my answers, FYI
If sickness and suffering is God’s preordained will, . . . . It is not. So, the rest of your question is not relevant.
If God has already determined who will be saved and who will be lost . . . . There is only one faith group (a subset of the Calvinists) that believes that, as far as I know. I do not. I believe that we all have a choice to make.
If God has foreordained who is saved and who is lost, . . . . see above.
If it is impossible to resist the grace of God, . . . . It is not impossible. People do it every day.
If there is no such thing as personal choice, . . . There is personal choice.
His promises are conditional. There is no question about that. It's like you might say to your child, "If you work hard, and save your money, you will be able to buy your bicycle."
Let me put it another way so that people will not get the idea that we can work our way to heaven. "If you have faith the size of a grain of mustard seed, you can move a mountain."
Basing rewards and punishments on belief is ridiculous and unconscionable.
Cheese, I am not sure what your statement has to do with anything i said, or for that matter anything in the post I was responding to. Care to elaborate? My only points were that his "if" clause in each question was false, and therefore the questions were not really relevant and in any case derived the same answer from me.
@ragansteve1
"Basing rewards and punishments on belief is ridiculous and unconscionable"
-------------------–
batc can confirm what he meant, but I presume this to mean the notion that confessing believers will be rewarded with paradise and non-believers (which in this case includes all devout non-Christians) will be punished in the eternal lake of fire.
Ah, I see. So, it wasn't what I said, but the general case. Well, I don't make the rules. But I do understand them.
The bottom line is, if you do not believe that God is the creator, this will always seem unfair. But if He is the creator, then He gets to decide the rules. Is it unfair if I create a vase, or a statue, and then decide to destroy it? How about if I decide to breed a cow, and then decide to eat the calf? If there is no God, then we are no more than primates with opposing thumbs, then this shouldn't bother you, right?
"How about if I decide to breed a cow, and then decide to eat the calf?"
--------------------------
You'd need to ask the cow, or perhaps more importantly, the calf! /pun
If there is no God, then we are no more than primates with opposing thumbs, then this shouldn't bother you, right?"
---------------------------
Are we not primates with opposing thumbs?
Admittedly my responses were a bit tongue in cheek. My point was that if we are nothing more than animals (I.e., "primates with opposing thumbs") then our deaths, or lives, being in the hands of someone else should not bother you. Right?
"our deaths, or lives, being in the hands of someone else should not bother you."
----------------------
Our lives are all we have – even more when you do not believe in an afterlife. This is fundamental to he concept of 'natural rights'. It is no one's prerogative to take that away.
As a society we build consensus on what is right and wrong, and justice that respects natural rights is a cornerstone of that – not just 'justice' from the state but from each other.
Perhaps I am not being clear. If you do not believe in eternity, or an afterlife therein, this shouldn't bother you. If God is real on the other hand, then He is sovereign, as the creator. We were created principally to be His free will companion. If we refuse that role, then what is he to do but let us go our own way and suffer the consequences of our decision.
It isn't like He is imposing His will on us to turn away from Him. This is not predestination, as a few Christian have misinterpreted passages in the Bible. This is a natural consequence of a decision we make.
Now again, if you don't believe in God, all of this is a moot point and we will live and die and nothing else will happen.
"But if He is the creator, then He gets to decide the rules."
steve,
An omnipotent being gets to set the rules, no doubt. The question is, is there an omnipotent, omniscient being that is loving and just? There may be, I don't discount it by any means.
The next question is, if there is a God, is the Abrahamic God it? Based on the bibles, I'd have to conclude no to that question. The God character in the OT behaves like a petulant and petty person, vindictive and cruel. Jesus is supposed to be that God, so while he talked nicer, he is still supposed to be that character.
The next question is, are the morals laid out in the bible the ones that seem right to live by? Here the answer is mixed. The basics are good, no unjustified killing, lying, etc., but there is also some stuff that reflects poorly on the purported God making those rules. Slavery is regulated rather than prohibited, penalties for many acts are brutal beyond my comfort zone (death for adultery, etc.). Innocent progeny of transgressors are liable for the crimes of their descendants.
I can only conclude that while a creator God may exist, it's not the one from the bible.
Progenitor, not descendant.
@Steve,
Is your question "if I don't believe in an afterlife, do I care what happens to me when I'm dead?"
The answer is no, not really, I'd be dead. I'd prefer my corpse wasn't defiled, since that would be insulting to my relatives and friends but it doesn't really matter that much. I'm not really sure what you are asking.
Boston,
"The question is, is there an omnipotent, omniscient being that is loving and just? There may be, I don't discount it by any means."
Good!! That's a start.
"The God character in the OT behaves like a petulant and petty person, vindictive and cruel. Jesus is supposed to be that God, so while he talked nicer, he is still supposed to be that character."
Well, that is your interpretation of His behavior. I would say, after all He did for the Israelites, and their frequent reb ellious resp onses, He was ju stified in being pretty angry. Ju st as He would be ju stified in being a ngry with many of us today. The difference, as you correctly identified, is Jesus' shift of emphasis from law and sa crifice for res t itution to grace afforded through Jesus. It wasn't just talking nicer. It was a total shift of the requirements.
"The next question is, are the morals laid out in the bible the ones that seem right to live by?" etc. etc.
Most of this, of course, is taken care of with the shift I noted above. I think you have to co nclude that the only way to co mpletely eliminate the sinful nature (and consequences) of mankind is to either eliminate mankind, or provide a way of salvation. God chose the latter, praise God.
"I can only conclude that while a creator God may exist, it's not the one from the bible" That is truly unfortunate.
GOP,
Is your question "if I don't believe in an afterlife, do I care what happens to me when I'm dead?"
Yes, my statement was not as articulate as I would have liked. You did get the heart of it though. Assuming that God doesn't purposely shorten your life (an unlikely event to say the least) , it seems you would not be too worried about God associated with the death event if you do not believe in Him or an afterlife.
steve,
I don't think I'm interpreting the OT, it is very graphic and explicit.
As to the 'shift' , I don't get that at all. Yahweh and Jesus are one. You can say Jesus changed the emphases, but Jesus is Yahweh, and Yahweh is well characterized in the OT.
No, I'm afraid that while the NT is chock full of great philosophy, when I examine the entirety of the Abrahamic God story, I strongly conclude it is one of the many cultural mythologies man has created.
Boston,
OK. It is my job to proclaim, not persuade.
Have a great evening!
You have a great evening also steve.
If your god is in control then your god is responsible for all the nasty things and thus your god isn't worthy of worship but the bible shows us that without you spewing your own personal delusions.
This once I will respond to you because you ask a critical question. My response is, "Who said He was in control?" Certainly not me. He can intervene at times. But by allowing us choice, He set up a system that does not allow His total control. Would you like to be totally controlled?
steve,
How can a God intervene on any human situation that matters and still retain free will?
Good question. I am not sure i know the entire answer. But I can say that he will intervene at times if we request intervention. I have seen it in my own life and the lives of others I know. Now, I will quickly add that I know you will find other explanations for those interventions. But you asked me, and that is my answer.
Thanks steve.
New man seems to be implying that with the last line of his comment.
OK, I would not agree with that implication if that is what he means.
The church of the future:
1. It’s growing
2. It’s rich.
3. It competes in a tough environment.
4. It’s self-supporting
5. It’s committed to social justice.
Okay all that sound like a good strategy for a corporate environment and it does not apply to the Church.
What does the Bible say when man starts to plan and strategize, this:
Unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain. It's just that simple yet profound truth.
The church of the future is one which fulfills the Lord's commission and stays firmly rooted in scriptural truth!
Scriptural truth ??????????? GIVE US BREAK !!!!
Too bad all you have to go by is just another work of men. No evidence of any "gods" being involved at all.
There is just as much evidence that Satan had involvement with the bible as there is for any "god", which is absolutely nothing.
there is more than enough evidence that you have made yourself into a tool for the devil. Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
But Saul, who is also called Paul, filled with and controlled by the Holy Spirit, looked steadily at [Elymas]
And said, You master in every form of deception and recklessness, unscrupulousness, and wickedness, you son of the devil, you enemy of everything that is upright and good, will you never stop perverting and making crooked the straight paths of the Lord and plotting against His saving purposes?
And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind, [so blind that you will be] unable to see the sun for a time. Instantly there fell upon him a mist and a darkness, and he groped about seeking persons who would lead him by the hand.
hello newman
"there is more than enough evidence that you have made yourself into a tool for the devil"
Stop lying. Considering the fact that there is no evidence at all showing this Satan of yours exists, there is no evidence wahtsoever that I am a tool for it.
Considering the fact that there is just as much evidence that satan wrote your book, as any gods, it is very possible, that YOU are a tool of the devil, as you follow his book...see the problem? no evidence anywhere means you have no idea what is actually true.
Don't bear false witness on me, christian.
how does the following make sense...
"....no evidence anywhere means you have no idea what is actually true. Don't bear false witness on me, christian."
your constant denial have veiled your mind to the Word of God. Your denial of God and the Word of God doesn't render both untrue. It just means you're steeped in darkness.
Tools of the devil. lol. Well, several early Christian apologists had some devilish tools. The kind that would scare people who weren't buying the early stories into believing. When I read some of the things Justin Martyr and similar wrote, it's difficult to think people would be so gullible, but it's a scare tactic, so that seemed to make a difference.
So new-man, lay out your evidence. I'll bet you anything you like you don't have any actual (physical, verifiable, independent, factual) evidence that would come even close to meeting the standards of the scientific method or the justice system's rules of evidence. All you have is a crappy book, written by who-knows-who and accepted by enough ignorant people (who might be mentally ill) and politicians to establish a widespread cult that is beginning to crumble. But go ahead – be the first to prove me wrong.
You deserve pity, not respect. To think so poorly of those who don't share your belief is you proving that you lack empathy and without empathy in this world you become part of the problem. Have you once considered that you might very well be wrong and that your own path is leading you astray? Have you ever thought about how you would feel if someone used their belief as a weapon against you and told you that if you didn't follow their belief you'd suffer in this so-called afterlife?
I personally believe that most Atheists are better humans than a lot of the Christians who post here, at least we're not using belief as a guise for hatred and denial of rights.
A modern view of baptism from a Catholic graduate theology class:
"The story of Adam and Eve is only symbolic.
This story was composed in the 900s BCE and functions as an etiology (explanatory myth) .
In the 900s Israel was self ruling, under King David and Solomon. The people were no longer at war and the question."
Why are we not happy?" may have been asked. The short answer is sin. (Look at 1 Kings 11 for some clues into why the story depicts Eve sinning first and then tempting Adam [Solomon] is therefore only symbolic of man's tendencies to sin.
Baptism does not erase original sin since the sin does not exist. The old "laundry of the soul," approach to Baptism is no longer accepted.
Infant Baptism is only a rite of initiation and commits parents and godparents to bringing up the child in a Christian home."
Amen!
Well said Francis.
What is "scriptural truth" ? There are so many possible interpretations of what that means, it's meaningless.
The texts in the OT were never the central organizing factor in ancient Israel, before or after the Exile.
There was no canon when Timothy said ( 2 Timothy 3:16) "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness", so he couldn't have been referring to the Bible. So what WAS he referring to ? St. Jerome accused St. Paul : "I will only mention the Apostle Paul. He, then, if anyone, ought to be calumniated; we should speak thus to him: ‘The proofs which you have used against the Jews and against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which they bear in your Epistles'." Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus
"We see passages taken captive by your pen and pressed into service to win you a victory, which in volumes from which they are taken have no controversial bearing at all ... the line so often adopted by strong men in controversy – of justifying the means by the result."
St. Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus (xlviii, 13; N&PNF. vi, 72-73)
I guess nothing they wrote can be trusted in an age where Pious Fraud was the norm, and accepted.
St. John Chrysostom, : "Do you see the advantage of deceit? For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ... And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."
Chrysostom, Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1.
Did someone post above asking, "what is the truth". All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness- 2Timothy 3:16. Also, Pilate stood before THE TRUTH and vacuously asked, "what is truth?'
Jesus never stood in Pilate's presence. Galilean peasants who were judged by the Pax Romana to be trouble-makers, were summarily executed, with no trial. They were NEVER EVER brought in front of, and to the homes of Roman aristocrats. Never. The Sanhedrin was never once in all of history called into session on Passover weekend. It's all a made up story. IF they went to all the trouble to arrest and execute him, why, upon reports of his supposed resurrection, did no one try to try to locate and re-arrest him ? Why ? Because none of it ever happened. Pilate's secretary wrote of all sorts of other mundane non-important things he did and witnessed. Why did he say NOTHING of this ? Because it never happened.
"All Scripture is God-breathed "
Such a fallacious claim backed by nothing. We do know that all scripture is written by man, we know there is zero evidence that there was any divine intervention.
"It’s committed to social justice"
As it should be! Not to be is to be a blemish on society...you forget that when you break it right down, we're all humans deserving of equal rights and treatment.
If there is a rift between science and religion I claim it is the fault of dogmatic religionists. Most scientists in general don't concern themselves with religious implications of their work. Almost half of them believe in higher power.
Evolution doesn't have to be in conflict, even at the most detailed levels. Evolution says living things change via changes in the genome (due to mutation, horizontal gene transfer, duplication, etc.), and lack of survival until procreation weeds out many of these changes. That weeding is called Natural Selection, but that is merely convention.
Humans have manipulated this process for centuries, creating scores of domesticated animals and plants. This creation of domesticated living things is intelligent design. If there is a God, it could just as easily created species by the survival selection process. A God could even put its finger on the scale of the random mutations if it were impatient, although that would not be necessary given the time scale we know has taken place.
There is no need to deny the obvious fact of evolution. That is like denying a spheroidal earth. There is plenty of room for God in evolution that would not be in conflict with the verified, tested evolution science, archeological, chemical, and physical evidence that exists. There is no evidence supporting God in evolution, but in that role, there is none refuting it.
So why not adopt evolution as God's tool for creation. What's a few billion years to God. Going into extreme contortions to explain away the validated science is not necessary. Any rift is the fault of dogmatic fundamentalists.
The RCC has no issue with evolution but then there is this:
Strong circc-umstantial evidence that god does not exist–
Number of god's creations of evolution who have died horrible deaths from the following diseases:
1. 300,000,000 approx.
Smallpox
2. 200,000,000 ?
Measles
3. 100,000,000 approx.
Black Death
4. 80,000,000–250,000,000
Malaria
5. 50,000,000–100,000,000
Spanish Flu
6. 40,000,000–100,000,000
Plague of Justinian
7. 40,000,000–100,000,000
Tuberculosis
8. 30,000,000[13]
AIDS pandemic
9. 12,000,000 ?
Third Pandemic of Bubonic Plague
10. 5,000,000
Antonine Plague
11. 4,000,000
Asian Flu
12. 250,000 or more annually Seasonal influenza
Reality,
why are the figures quoted "strong evidence" for the non-existence of God?
Your god of mercy and goodness would never allow his creations to die horrible painful deaths.
it's not God that allows this to happen. we do.
The Problem of Evil
“Christians famously have the problem of pain: how can a benevolent and omnipotent god permit evil to exist?” - Stephen Marche
Such a question infers that the author believes himself to be free of evil. He has never had an evil thought, never spoken an evil word, never lied, cheated or stolen anything, never been angry or rude. Evil is a realm that others live in, not him. “Why does God allow evil?” Or, “why can’t everyone be like me?”
This simplistic, atheistic thinking represents the height of hypocrisy and egomania for those who choose to deny the existence of God. They are blind to the fact that God has given them life and the ability to choose their path, their words, thoughts and actions. They enjoy that liberty and do not want it infringed upon. They want the freedom to take drugs ‘recreationally,’ to sleep around and to lie about their taxes. But if God exists, ‘why doesn’t He stop evil?’
Many are anxious for the god they don’t believe in to stop evil, but they want the freedom to live any lifestyle they choose. ‘Evil’ is always somewhere else, perpetrated by someone else. It is the mass murderer, the cruel dictator or the terrible earthquake that should be stopped. But the ability to yell at your wife, kick the dog and drive over the speed limit is not called into question. Why is that?
“….light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.” (Jn. 3:19-20)
“For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:” (Mt 15:19)
Sadly, we live in a day in which “evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse…” (2 Tim. 3:13). It is easier to blame God than to repent of the evil in their own hearts.
B.Bennett CBC
If you believe an infant is evil and worthy of hell, I really don't know what to say.
G to the T,
no where is it implied that an infant is evil or worthy of hell!
matter of fact, for the time you've been on this board it has been mentioned countless times that ALL our sins – past, present, and future, are already forgiven due to Jesus' death.
we're all born with a sin-nature because we're all children of Adam. being born with a sin-nature is not the same as being evil.
Oh, so we don't even have to believe in your god and whatever your he supposedly did cancels out any of the bad stuff anyway. Interesting. Good to know....
Doris,
it's great to see you're coming into an understanding of Salvation.
You are 100% correct – one has to place their faith and trust in Jesus and what He has done,... come on Doris, how can you receive what Jesus has done if you don't believe He has done anything hmmm?
new-man, Adam never existed, and there was no original sin. Therefore all of Christianity falls apart.
I think you misread what I wrote, new-man. I think the word you misunderstood was "didn't". That whole concept of salvation really disgusts me. That reminds me, my spam folder is getting full again....
Doris, I think I understood your post – you were being sarcastic.
In any event:
1. The Truth is always an offense.
2. Jesus says this to you Doris – And blessed (happy, fortunate, and to be envied) is he who takes no offense at Me and finds no cause for stumbling in or through Me and is not hindered from seeing the Truth.
Blessings!
Joey,
Adam existed.
what is original sin?
"1. The Truth is always an offense."
Of course I'm amused that you would find the need to capitalize truth as if that helps make your case for your definition, which I must assume is not independent from divinity. But why is it always "an offense"? That seems rather odd.
Truth is capitalized because Truth is a person. His name is Christ Jesus.
The Truth is usually/often-times an offense Doris. Are you being caused to stumble Doris...?
And they took offense at Him [they were repelled and hindered from acknowledging His authority, and caused to stumble]. But Jesus said to them, A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house.
God exalts the humble Doris, blessed are you if you take no offense in Him and His Saving grace/Salvation.
Walking on All Fours Is Not Backward Evolution, Study Shows
http://www.utexas.edu/news/2014/07/16/quadrupedal-humans-shapiro-study/
– oops, backward evolutionists are wrong again!
Shut up Meg...
Scot
You do realize that it was a religious nut case that called this anything involving evolution, right?
FTA "Previous research countering this view has proposed that the quadrupedalism associated with UTS is simply an adaptive response to the impaired ability to walk bipedally in individuals with a genetic mutation".
All this proves is that genetic mutations happen. That hardly supports your claim.
Previous research countering this view has proposed that the quadrupedalism associated with UTS is simply an adaptive response to the impaired ability to walk bipedally in individuals with a genetic mutation, BUT THIS IS THE FIRST STUDY THAT DISPROVES CLAIMS THAT THIS FORM OF WALKING RESEMBLES THAT OF NONHUMAN PRIMATES.
– you forgot to finish the paragraph.
How does that in any way change what I posted??
It proves this was a mutation/birth defect the the individuals have tried to adapt to.
– it proves once again that mutations are harmful and not beneficial
– it doesn't confirm evolution at all and in fact proves the opposite.
@Alias
Don't waste logic on a cult member. Their cognitive dissonance is too strong.
"suggests deep fear and desperation."
– yes indeed, your name-calling and ad hominem attacks do suggest deep fear and desperation.
Facepalm.
Not all mutations are harmful.
Not all mutations are beneficial.
Most are neutral.
I have never seen anyone claim that all mutations must be beneficial.
Yeesh.
Alias,
The scot character incessantly mis characterizing the quotes of others suggests deep fear and desperation. So desperate that he abandons his own cherished moral code. It's very sad.
yeah boston, he is pathetic.
Look at his conversation below with redzoa...he notes a quote, but actually added his own BS to the quote.
See his post from today at 10:26.
He is either a pathetic troll, or insane...either way....
Igaftr,
I do think scot enjoys to provoke, so there is a component of troll in him, but I also think he actually believes in young earth creationism. His behavior is desperate and fearful in my estimation. He is sad to me.
Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.
John 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and stayed not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Indeed Christ was speaking to Jews who refused to believe the Messiah had come. They claimed to be descendants of Abraham and they were, just not spiritual descendants. They claimed that their father was God, but Christ assured them that this was not the case and that their father was the devil and they were liars in claiming God was their father. You have made it all too clear that God is not YOUR father and that you reject Christ; therefore your father must be the devil as well.
a wondering slvt
" You have made it all too clear that God is not YOUR father and that you reject Christ; therefore your father must be the devil as well."
That makes perfect nonsense. There are many other possibilities that follow god or follow satan.
Considering the constant deceptions coming from you, you are demonstrating that you follow the great deciever, Satan, so if you actually believe in that nonsense, perhaps you should examine your behavior and ask yourself, if posting lies, and non contextual quotes ( and even putting your own words into quotes you site).
You truly are pathetic.
The tallest man I've ever seen afloat,
On a boat, on a boat.
On a boat, on a boat.
He keeps his only son close by.
In a bag, in a bag.
In a bag on his back.
I see a new article on the Pope where comments are closed. And it just has:
"Why Pope Francis is tougher than you think [ti.tle followed by]
CNN's Daniel Burke gives us five reasons Pope Francis is much tougher than you think."
When I click on the hyperlink, it goes nowhere.
I guess you have to have a lot of faith in those five reasons...
OK, sorry – I see now that it is a video-only article.
Why is it always 5 reasons? There are methods for counting higher than 5. I'd be glad to share them with Dan.
Just click play on the video, Doris. There's no text.
Also, going forward, comments will only be open on select CNN.com stories. It's a company-wide thing.
thanks,
Daniel
the trolls were getting out of hand, eh?
Maybe it's just small sample size, but the only posts blocked for comments have been the last 3 pope articles. That does raise an eyebrow.
I noticed that too.
I thought it a useful prophylactic prevention of the inevitable pedophilia comments.
We've heard them all before.
" We've heard them all before. "
I agree to an extent, but the same arguments justifying the church scandal keep being trotted, so the refutations will always be the same. Much like every other discussion here.
Internet a gift from god – Pope Francis could that be reason 6 /
Attention all con artists from Rome: Christianity's growth in South Korea is 99 % attributable to the Pentecostal faith tradition, NOT the dysfunctional Catholic Church,
Whatever as it won't last long. And why is that?
The erroneous theology and history of Christianity. Details previously presented.
Won't last long? Define long. We've been around 2k years. Details obvious.
Here we come:
o http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
oReligion >>Adherents
"Christianity 2.1 billion
Islam 1.5 billion
Irreligious/agnostic/atheism 1.1 billion
Hinduism 900 million
Chinese traditional religion 394 million
Buddhism 376 million
Animist religions 300 million
African traditional/diasporic religions 100 million
Sikhism 23 million
Juche 19 million
Spiritism 15 million
Judaism 14 million
Baha'i 7 million
Jainism 4.2 million
Shinto 4 million
Cao Dai 4 million
Zoroastrianism 2.6 million
Tenrikyo 2 million
Neo-Paganism 1 million
Unitarian Universalism 800,000
Rastafari Movement 600,000"
Reality...assuming your raw numbers are accurate (don't have an opinion on the issue), how many of your "Irreligious/agnostic/atheism 1.1 billion" hail from countries to which this status if mostly dictated upon them (i.e. North Korea, and in particular, China). (I accept that China has some religious freedom–but that is mostly lip service). If your 1.1 billion includes those under China's laws, then the numbers aren't real (to the extent that there are, as you at least imply 1.1. billion, who are voluntary atheists).
Workingcopy,
If Chinese Traditional Religion is counted, why wouldn't you count Chinese Irreligious/agnostic/atheists?
Looks as if both sides are represented.
Shaman, con-artist....
Potayto, potahto...
The pentacostal tradition is aerobic, at least. Lots of movement and shouting. Catholicism is closed in and stifling with all the incense – I actually saw soemone pass out in a cathedral in Montreal. At least look to your health when you choose a cult or sect.
Pentecostals are another "End Times" kinda Christian sect – at least in their early days.
The speaking in tongues is a bit much though – plus, some of them believe that their faith can give them magic powers.
Which is even crazier when you consider that the text in Mark where Jesus tells the Apostles they will have the gift of glossolalia is now well accepted by biblical scholars as being forged text added to the end of Mark in the Fifth Century.
If I had to pick one it would be a church with Gospel music. I love Gospel music.
You must think it very odd of me,
But I enjoy the act of sodomy.
You might call the wrath of God on me,
But if you tried it then you might agree,
That you enjoy the act of sodomy.
Don't worry if you feel ashamed,
It's been around for years.
Thousands more than can be named,
Are interested in rears.
Don't worry about Hell,
No harm will come to your soul.
We're not all Pentacostal,
But everybody's got an as.shole!
– "Sodomy Song" from Peter Jackson's "Meet the Feebles"
"I just wanna give you the CREEPS!!"
Run and hide when I'm on the streets,
Your fears and your tears
I'll taunt you in your sleep!!
I wish it were that easy, but it is not.
Th Mormons believe all kinds of crazy things, but they are still growing.
Poor Scotty now resorts to a non-biologist who has been away from academia for over twenty years in his quest to prove evolution as false...lol. I can only imagine that for someone to be this willfully ignorant, they must have lost big on a book deal/other media investment of some kind that supported nutty young-earth creationism.
Money is a big factor when it comes to lying and going against what you were taught as a geologist to satisfy what these young-earth creationists want to hear. We've seen people like Andrew Snelling play both sides of the fence for the almighty $. Now, I learn of more like him from this page:
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/paleosol.htm
only here we see where some have adopted pseudo names to sell the young-earth version of their "expertise".
We also saw, in May 2005, the publisher of Of Pandas and People, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE), filed a motion seeking to intervene in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case. FTE argued that a ruling that intelligent design was religious would have severe financial consequences, citing possible losses of approximately half a million dollars. It was ruled that they were not allowed to intervene.
The real fact of the matter is that we have today fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals and they have always been with us over the years and down through the ages. They have not evolved and the ones that are not with us became extinct. These extinct species are the ones seen in the fossil record. Evolution has never been proven despite all the hype.
No a wondering slvt.
Your post is just plain wrong.
awanderingdolt: No matter how many times you say it, you are still being intellectually dishonest-the peer-reviewed evidence tells us you are wrong and that your favorite incestuous stories of the bible are also fallacious.
awanderingscot: I thought you maybe would enjoy educating yourself while you have a few weeks to go before school goes back. Please watch this series and you'll the truth about Evolution. Neil De Grasse Tyson is a brilliant, well educated man and the series is easy for the average 10 year old to follow.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/cosmos/
Doris,
It is amazing how much time and energy scot puts in to find quotes by people who are not biologists working in evolution. There are always going to be religious zealots that can be found because 40% of scientists are Christian. Out of that group, there will always be some fringe and they have varied opinions about subjects that they are not expert in. People like scot live on that fringe opinion. These incessant posts scream out with desperation and fear. They cross into the extreme with the willful lying and libelous thrashing. It's very sad.
What I find more interesting is the vast majority of Christian biologists that recognize evolution as fact and the structural foundation of their entire field of science.
I'm a molecular biologist and bioinformatician in my day job. Most everything posted here on biology makes my day. One day I'll die while choking on my coffee with laughter.
Tom,
That's interesting. What is most impressive is that Christian microbiologists, molecular biologists, biochemists, neuroscientists, etc. know that evolution is the unifying theory of their fields. Scientists that happen to be Christian, at that physical level of biology, know that evolution is a part of explaining the world at that level along with statistics, physics, and chemistry, etc.
True. Many do accept modern biology entirely. Francis Collins is one.
Dr. Collins is very devout and fully accepts evolution. I'm sure you know of Dr. David Lack. He was a brilliant biologist that had some impressive perspectives on reconciling belief and evolution.
Tom & Bostontola,
Also consider Asa Gray.
And for all you scientists and science minded folks, you may like biologos.org
Peace
The really funny part is how the arguments for evolution compared against the arguments for creation use completely opposite standards of veracity.
Example- The case for evolution is supported by mountains of evidence but creationists point to the tiny gaps in our knowledge, like incomplete fossil records or that successfully adapted species are not evolving wholecloth in short timespans, as indicative of evolution being false.
At the same time claims of miraculous or supernatural events are almost entirely dismissed or can be explained away by natural phenomena, coincidence or faulty perceptions yet the tiny fraction of those that defy explanation are heralded as shining examples of indisputable evidence.
In both cases it's the fringe or outlying exceptions that are given unwarranted priority over the vast bulk of accepted and proven data. This is the very bread and butter behind all conspiracy theories and an intellectually dishonest way to pursue truth.
But Steve, they're promising an eternal life of bliss – and no pain or boredom. Tiny slivers of non-evidence are surely good enough if that's what we have to look forward to if we believe. And if there's any chance of hell, then certainly anything we might do to avoid that is the way to go.
Then I'm with Mark Twain on this one. "Heaven for the scenery, Hell for the company." Seems even the afterlife is a contradiction.
AtheistSteve
Jesus said the road is narrow and few find it. This fits with your observation.
My ways are not your ways............yep fits your observation
The pride of life is self evident in your post. The proud cannot see God
Noah built a boat in desert while everyone else was following the way of man
=>I complement you powers of observation confirming the Bible is true
Jesus allegedly said. . .
cannot see an alleged god. . .
Noah allegedly built. . .
Three claimed – zero evidence.
hotairace
"allegedly said"
=>I am not aware of any other written work in the past 3,400 years that is the Living Word of God. In my case it directs my life, my thoughts and is responsible for the complete transformation of who I am. You can have that experience if you choose as the Word of God springs to life in the heart and mind of anyone who desires it.
I once thought the Bible was full of old nonsense then when I needed to hear the truth it hit me square on. Your understanding of the Bible as well as your understanding of life is subject to your approach. If you believe life is harsh and cruel that is what you will find. If you are thankful for what you have you will express a thankful life. When you believe the Bible is nonsense your belief will be validated. But, when you begin to believe it is the Word of God you will find the Word of God.
You know of a book that claims to be the word of some alleged but never proven god. You don't truly know of any book that absolutely is the word of any god, dead or alive, alleged or real. You are pretending to know things you do not and have merely subst!tuted one add!ction for another. Enjoy your delusions, but please keep them away from children.
hotairace
It is reality. God is present in those who believe. God is present in my life and in the same manner in millions of lives. What you are speaking about is your concept if "god" and that simply is your concept it has no affect or presence in reality. Your concept of "god" is the delusion.
You pull out all the excuses you want however your excuses do not change reality. Here is reality. I follow Christ and I try the best I can to live in a Christ like way. I have significant impact in my community. Just on saving babies that would have been aborted by providing full housing, support and education one baby at a time Gods presence in my life is every bit as real as whatever is driving your life. I pray your influence on those you touch is a positive one also.
Why hasn't your imaginary friend stopped abortions? Why do members of the christian cult have in excess of 700,000 abortions per year in the USA alone? What behaviors of cult members would you expect if your alleged but never proven god actually existed?
Oh my, I can speak for him slightly here...he did not confirm the bible to be true...please don't twist this good mans words and don't preach about our souls-you're the one who need to worry by the way you judge people (the delusional thinking that a soul exists). If heaven and hell exists, it is not people like us who wouldn't get to heaven-we're good people, we judge no-one...hell will be filled with people like you though.
hotairace
"Why hasn't your imaginary friend stopped abortions?"
=>How could we reveal our true desires if we have no part in the good or the bad.
" Why do members of the christian cult have in excess of 700,000 abortions per year in the USA alone?"
=>Most people do what the think is right at the time, Christians are not exempt from error.
" What behaviors of cult members would you expect if your alleged but never proven god actually existed?"
=>exactly what we both see unfolding before us. Each has his own will and each person is very individual. This is Gods plan and what we see happening was expressed in the Bible good and bad
TruthPrevails1
The Bible says we are not in a position to know who is saved. Actually, Jesus said we are going to be surprised at who is and who is not in the Kingdom.
"A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp.....moreover, for the most part these "experts" have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully." – Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician
– evolution is complete and utter nonsense
– stooges such as Bostonola, Redzoa, DOC, IGAFRT, and others will foolishly try to make the case that most of the quotes i post are out of context but these claims are baseless and immature. For example, the quote above, no honest and reasonable person could read the quote and argue that it was taken out of context. In other words the guy is going along affirming or endorsing evolution and then all of a sudden he says something like this? It really strains the imagination to infer that the statement was taken out of context doesn't it? If indeed evolution were a fact, the plethora of quotes by scientists condemning it would not exist at all.
– evolutionists, atheists in particular are delusional, wanting so bad for evolution to be fact, and it's simply not.
wandering,
Do you have any evidence for creationism?
Why do you think evolution is taught at all major universities around the world and creationism isn't?
wandering,
What would be examples of "strictly scientific grounds"?
awanderingscot,
Speaking of stooges, you were the one trashing atheists for not accepting responsibility while you brag about Jesus DYING for YOUR SINS.
Great job!
Well, to be fair, we really weren't given a choice. On the other hand, who would have chosen otherwise. So?
ragansteve1,
When Christians on here say Jesus is like a criminal getting a "Get out of Jail free" card, they have no business trying to pick on atheists for not taking responsibility for what they do.
I would....
Cheese, OK that answers my questions about you.
Observer, I don't recall accusing atheists of anything.
Yeah Steve,
I am not a guy who would choose to let someone else pay for a "crime" I did...what of it...
"What of it"? Nada. It just answers my question. Did you expect more?
@Santa
– Oh where to start .. entropy? .. the fallacy of a 3 billion yr old geologic column? .. the non-existence of any intermediate forms either alive or in the fossil record? I could go on and on. The fabric of the myth of evolution looks like swiss cheese.
– Why do you suppose there are so many renowned scientists calling it a fable? Do you really believe if it were fact so many would be condemning it? Don't they have a reputation of credibility to uphold as well?
awanderingscot,
If by “entropy”, you mean the 2nd law of thermodynamics then evolution does not violate it since for one thing earth is not a closed system.
Not sure what you mean by fallacy, but obviously the textbook version is a generic example whereas each location would have its own layers indicating erosion, sedimentation, and even folding of entire layers.
The fossil record is full of intermediate forms, some highlights include Tiktaalik, Archaeopteryx, and Ambulocetus.
Not sure how many “renowned” scientist call evolution a fable, but how many are named steve? http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve
Ken, entropy applies to both closed and open systems.
Tiktaalik is not an intermediary form, tetrapods existed 'millions' of years before it; and neither are Archaeopteryx and Ambulocetus. One would have to be a proponent of saltation to consider those to be intermediate species No one today is an outright advocate of macromutation these days when they can fall back to the comfort of gradualism. Furthermore, there are virtually no scientists pointing to the fossil record as being proof of intermediate forms. They may like Gould and other say that the change happens so quickly that no fossil record is left, but this is a blind argument and convenient when you have no proof, only "take my word for it". It doesn't wash and thus we have "punctuated equilibrium", an equally fallacious concept.
awanderingscot,
Yes, entropy applies, but why would that be a problem for evolution if you aren't talking about the 2LOT?
awanderingscot,
What are you talking about those fossils are very much transitional forms Tiktaalik shows characteristics of both fish and tetra-pods in the very geologic time period that one would expect the transition to occur. That is how they found it. The science predicted the general location where such fossils would be found based on the theory of evolution and geologic principles.
saltation? Why would the fossil record require large morphological change between generations? Sure, changes can happen "relatively" rapidly between stretches of less change, but no one is claiming such changes between generations, nor does the fossil record support nor require such.
Concerning the geologic column, it remains only a concept. It's not real. What i mean by that is the fact is that the "column" is on average only a mile thick worldwide with the thickest being a certain basin with a thickness of 16 miles. According to scientists and mathematicians the column should be 100-200 miles thick according to the supposed age of 3+ billion years for the earth. Proponents love to point out that all the strata where the column in it's entirety exists contain all the geologic eras over time but they cannot tell you where all this other material disappeared to. Somehow it oozed out and disappeared also leaving the layers intact! It's preposterous.
It's been pointed out to scot before that a transitional form need not be the direct ancestor of later forms nor does it need to be the first in the series. The fact that tiktaalik exists at all, bearing traits of both fish and tetrapods, confounds the creationist notion of immutable "kinds." Furthermore, scot apparently still doesn't grasp the taxonomic hierarchy and how expectations for observations at the species level (e.g. PE v. gradualism; both are reflected in the fossil record) simply doesn't expunge observations of transitional forms at higher taxonomic levels. Speciation most certainly does not require macromutation. As the various studies of broadcast spawning marine invertebrates suggest, reproductive isolation can arise with minimal mutations within those proteins responsible for gamete binding. As usual, scot has little if any understanding of the relevant science he desperately attempts to excoriate.
I'm not sure what you are referring to about the geologic column. Each area has its own history, e.g. rate of deposition, erosion, uplift, subsidence, etc. Obviously, not every layer in every spot is going to be the same thickness.
What are you talking about those fossils are very much transitional forms Tiktaalik shows characteristics of both fish and tetra-pods in the very geologic time period that one would expect the transition to occur.
>>> there is the inconvenient little thing called stasis that disputes this claim, all supposed ancestors existed for 'millions' or years without any change at all until they become extinct, they're not ancestors at all. Furthermore, there are virtually no decendants of Tiktaalik and no existence of Tiktaalik in stasis, it appeared and then became extinct.
saltation? Why would the fossil record require large morphological change between generations? Sure, changes can happen "relatively" rapidly between stretches of less change, but no one is claiming such changes between generations, nor does the fossil record support nor require such.
>>> Gradualism requires very long periods of time that are just not there, mathematicians have proven this. The earth would have to be hundreds of billions of years old. And besides this the record shows 'very long periods of time' called stasis when there was no change in the form at all.
>>> macromutations result in death of that particular being and don't translate to the group. It's a myth that somehow if one occurrence of a defective gene manifests itself that the entire species also mutates. This is nonsense and can never be proven.
>>> Another thing that cannot be accounted for by evolutionists are the 5 major extinctions that wiped out almost all life on earth. These 'start over' events make gradualism prohibitive. A fish cannot go from being a fish, to a land mammal breathing air, and then back to being a sea creature such as a whale in the time allotted by evolutionists. It's preposterous.
"The geologic column is a sequence of strata that is independent of total thickness and always has been."
–Joseph Meert, Professor, Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Florida (Ph.D. University of Michigan, 1993)
Dr. Meert has a very interesting page here:
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/paleosol.htm
where he explains the young-earth creationists' scientific misrepresentations. Oh, Scot – misrepresentation – that's right up your alley! He also explains gives examples of some more greedy biologists who work both sides of the fence, where, and get this, under known pseudo names, publish ($$$) as young-earth creationist scientific "experts" to give the young-earth creationists the story they want to hear. My goodness – Andrew Snelling all over again – but trying to cover their behinds under pseudo names....
@Redzoa
"Speciation most certainly does not require macromutation"
– It is one thing to make this assertion, and quite another to prove it. Thus far, evolutionists have been unable to do this and that is why they vacillate between gradualism and pe.
"The geologic column is a sequence of strata that is independent of total thickness and always has been."
– this is merely a political statement meant to deflect since it is generally agreed in the evolution camp that the thickness is BETWEEN 100 and 200 miles thick.
scot's word salad above conflates a number of concepts. Stasis is reflected in PE and it does occur for millions of years; however, the nodes of PE, spanning 10K – 100K+ years reflect plenty of time for gradualism to operate. Furthermore, gradualism is reflected in the fossil record as PE proponent Gould noted himself, e.g. the Foraminifera.
There's a profound irony in scot's statement: "A fish cannot go from being a fish, to a land mammal breathing air, and then back to being a sea creature such as a whale in the time allotted by evolutionists. It's preposterous." First, to my knowledge, neither evolution nor the available fossil record suggests a complete re-start; rather, just a continuation from those forms which persisted throughout the extinction events. scot fails to account for the genetic and anatomical evidence linking whales to land mammals. The irony comes when one considers that creationists consider evolution impossible within the context of geologic time, yet they require hyper-evolution beyond any rates imagined by mainstream science to account for observable biodiversity resulting from the founding "kind" pairs in ~ 4000 yrs. Because we know that small populations will invariably and rapidly lose genetic variability due to allelic fixation, the only remaining route to supplement this loss of genetic variation is an astounding rate of beneficial mutation acquisition (i.e. creationists require the "hopeful monsters" discarded by modern evolutionary theory). So in essence, evolution is impossible, unless hyper-evolution is required to augment their mythical narrative.
Oh really, Scot? Then are you able to provide me with evidence of that agreement – you know from sources other than web sites that contain the words genesis, creation and similar?
@Redzoa
"nor does it need to be the first in the series"
– What series? you cannot in fact point to any 'series' at all. It doesn't exist. Furthermore, how would you go about proving that one in the series could not in fact mate successfully with another further up in the series? You cannot, and the old adage applies, "if you can't dazzle em with brilliance, then baffle em with BS"
@Redzoa
"beneficial mutation acquisition"
– this is another myth that is an oxymoron. by definition mutations are harmful and again have never been proven to proliferate.
"It is one thing to make this assertion, and quite another to prove it. Thus far, evolutionists have been unable to do this and that is why they vacillate between gradualism and pe."
First, I pointed you to the broadcast spawning marine invertebrate speciation work. A few, or even a single, mutations in the proteins which allow gametes to bind is sufficient to establish reproductive isolation. I would also direct you to the various speciation work with small mammals demonstrating highly restrained gene flow indicating an effective reproductive isolation. Furthermore, I could point you to Dodd's and other fruitfly researchers who demonstrated reproductive isolation in experimental populations. There are plenty of other examples available if you were actually interested. The point here, however, is that in none of these cases was a macromutation and no wholesale reorganization of the genome was required.
Additionally, it is well established that PE dominates the fossil record, but that nonetheless, gradualism is still reflected. But again, your miscomprehension appears to rest in the inability to comprehend that PE is a species-level observation, i.e. the smallest level of taxonomic change. Speciation, as has been well established, does not require a substantial genetic or morphological change. Evolution operates over multiple scales and while the scale at the species level does reflect stasis and relatively rapid divergence, when one moves out to larger taxonomic scales, the trend is relatively gradual. For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza#mediaviewer/File:Kheops-Pyramid.jpg
If you are standing 5 ft away from a block on the pyramid, what you observe is a sheer vertical climb and a 90 degree angle; however, when you are standing 500 ft away from the pyramid, one can clearly see that at a larger scale the incline is gradual.
So Scot, Dri Meert goes on to say that "1. The Geologic column is not, nor was ever meant, to represent a complete record of day-to-day sedimentation on the Earth. A local geologic column is a sequence of rocks that represent the history of deposition in that particular area. "
So Scot, it sure sounds like to me where you started above with "According to scientists and mathematicians the column should be 100-200 miles thick according to....", what you really mean is "according to me [and my misguided idea of what the geologic column may represent in a specific case]...."
"What series? you cannot in fact point to any 'series' at all. It doesn't exist. Furthermore, how would you go about proving that one in the series could not in fact mate successfully with another further up in the series? You cannot, and the old adage applies, "if you can't dazzle em with brilliance, then baffle em with BS""
I note that you failed to respond to the fact that tiktaalik reflects traits which bridge the allegedly immutable specially-created "kinds." With respect to a series, in the general sense, the fossils appear in a progressive order, e.g.:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_04
"this is another myth that is an oxymoron. by definition mutations are harmful and again have never been proven to proliferate."
As has been explained to you before, mutations may be harmful, beneficial, or neutral and these determinations are post-hoc based upon a given environment at a given time. For example, a mutation which allows a bacteria to resist antibiotics will likely result in the mutant growing more slowly than the wild type ("aha! the mutation is harmful); however, in the presence of the antibiotic, the mutant survives and the wild type dies ("ahhh . . .").
I would add that scot failed to remotely address how the founding "kind" pairs were capable of producing observable biodiversity in ~ 4000 yrs despite their incredible lack of genetic diversity. Creationists are fond of claiming that organisms can only "adapt" but not evolve, yet here, they have nothing with which to adapt with and necessarily require some infusion of beneficial genetic variation.
@Redzoa
"Furthermore, I could point you to Dodd's and other fruitfly researchers who demonstrated reproductive isolation in experimental populations."
– i believe this has been pointed out to you previous, but this is not NATURAL SELECTION.
– furthermore, just as with the light and dark moths, that trait exists in both but not necessarily manifest in both. It's still a fruitfly and not your garden variety housefly.
– it's been fun but i gotta go, adaptation yes, evolution a resounding no.
"i believe this has been pointed out to you previous, but this is not NATURAL SELECTION.
– furthermore, just as with the light and dark moths, that trait exists in both but not necessarily manifest in both. It's still a fruitfly and not your garden variety housefly.
– it's been fun but i gotta go, adaptation yes, evolution a resounding no."
Dodd's flies were of course an artificial selection experiment, but it nonetheless directly contradicts your earlier argument insisting that macromutation must accompany a speciation event. I would note that some of the other examples I referenced, e.g. broad cast spawning marine invertebrates, are most definitely not artificial selection experiments and there are plenty of other examples of speciation in the wild.
This thread continues the trend of presenting a creationist argument, then side-stepping when the argument is refuted while wholly ignoring any attempt to respond to the problems which directly confound the creationist narrative, i.e. the mere existence of tiktaalik confounds specially-created, immutable "kinds"; the problem of hyper-evolution from founding "kind" pairs which would invariably experience a rapid loss (above and beyond the already highly restricted) genetic variability.
@Redzoa – stated
"I would note that some of the other examples I referenced, e.g. broad cast spawning marine invertebrates, are most definitely not artificial selection experiments and there are plenty of other examples of speciation in the wild."
– There are plenty of examples of adaptation in the wild but this is hogwash and certainly no case study for evolution. Changing the likely s.perm environment seems to result in adaptive plasticity of gamete traits in the broadcast spawning ascidian, Selection on s.perm count accounts for 1/2 of the anisogamy equation, the other half being variability in egg size. These are ADAPTIVE traits and do nothing to prove the myth.
– http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13508.full
– evolution is complete and utter nonsense.
a wondering slvt
You cited http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13508.full
But did not actually quote from there, for example you put in the whole beginning of the quote where you use the word hogwash, so now not only are you quote mining, and using the idiotic tactic of Out of Context fallacy, but now you are just putting your own nonsense into your "quotes".
You are as dishonest as they come.
Where again was your evidence for creationism? Oh yeah, it is only a baseless hypothesis, that has nothing to support it, so does not even qualify as a theory...and you are ignorant enough to believe it.
By the way, the quote you posted has nothing to do with evolution.
@IGAFRT
– don't let your hate consume you just yet, there is alot more to come.
not hate slvt, pity, as one pities anything as pathetic as you.
Does your Jesus like how dishonest you are?
And I am certain there is more dishonest nonsense coming from you.
"Changing the likely s.perm environment seems to result in adaptive plasticity of gamete traits in the broadcast spawning ascidian,Selection on s.perm count accounts for 1/2 of the anisogamy equation, "
Translation:
Sometimes I use big words I don't always fully understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
It's not clear what point scot was making with his PNAS citation and given his prior attempts to discuss the science, it's likely that he doesn't comprehends neither the relevance of broadcast spawning marine inverts or why his reference isn't directly on point. The initial argument he made was that speciation required some type of macromutation; my response was that it is clear that reproductive isolation can result from minimal mutations, particularly with respect to gamete binding receptor proteins. A more relevant reference would be:
http://www.biolbull.org/content/224/3/166.long
Particularly the section under subheading "Gamete Recognition Proteins."
Oops. Should have read, "it's likely that he comprehends neither . . ."
awanderingscot,
“there is the inconvenient little thing called stasis that disputes this claim, all supposed ancestors existed for 'millions' or years without any change at all until they become extinct, they're not ancestors at all. Furthermore, there are virtually no decendants of Tiktaalik and no existence of Tiktaalik in stasis, it appeared and then became extinct.”
I’m not sure where you got your information, but stasis, as in long periods of little apparent change within a species, *can* happen but does not *have* to happen.
“Gradualism requires very long periods of time…”
Strict gradualism is not part of the Modern Synthesis, if I’m not mistaken.
“macromutations result in death of that particular being and don't translate to the group. It's a myth that somehow if one occurrence of a defective gene manifests itself that the entire species also mutates. This is nonsense and can never be proven.”
I not sure what you mean by “macromutations”, but changes happen in increments the are present in an interbreeding population. The trait is propagated through said population by individuals, but the successful traits lead to better survivability for the individuals over multiple generations. If a trait is really successful the entire population *may* end up with it, but often it is more neutral.
“Another thing that cannot be accounted for by evolutionists are the 5 major extinctions…”
Again, strict gradualism is not part of the Modern Synthesis. mass extinctions provide large empty niches with little compet.ition that increase the opportunities for random changes to be useful, hence evolution.
"Gradualism does not mean constant rate of change." – Wikipedia (admittedly not a primary source)
scot do you even have any clue what you are talking about? seriously?
you're mixing particule physics "2nd law of thermal dynamics" which there is a 1st law also "energy can not be created nor destroyed" no god required in particule physics to create anything if it can't be destroyed in the first place
then you are trying to mix that with evolutionary theory (hint means fact in science); i love you know bits of things, yet still know nothing at all.
thanks for playing scot; you silly troll.
Interesting guy!! I like the interdisciplinary aspect of his work.
Indeed he is an interesting fellow. I like in particular his philosophy of hylomorphism as it applies to science (not really his in totality but as extant to Aristotle's philosophy). I don't know what his interpretation of the body and soul looks like, mine says the soul is an addition to the body. All in all i like his views as a scientist.
I suppose, if you want to listen to someone fuss about biology who is not a biologist and has been retired from academia for over twenty years.
Not here's some interesting biological news from Science Daily regarding findings published in PLOS Biology from University College London:
Our ancestor's 'leaky' membrane answers big questions in biology
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140812121731.htm
Yes, that is an interesting article. I am not 100% confident in either computer or mathematical models for answers to life. But it is interesting to speculate about them.
I find interdisciplinary study interesting not to the exclusion of more focused study, but so that narrowly focused study can have some context. Otherwise we find ourselves making arrogant errors.
"stooges such as Bostonola, Redzoa, DOC, IGAFRT, and others will foolishly try to make the case that most of the quotes i post are out of context but these claims are baseless and immature."
Many of your quotes have been directly exposed as quote mines with references to the complete quotes in context. This practice of quote mining is so common that there is a nice record of their misapplication by creationists known as the "Quote Mine Project" maintained at talkorigins.
I don't doubt that this particular quote is accurately representative of the original declarant's views; however, this opinion is simply not supported by the available evidence, i.e. polling of scientists within the relevant fields. A growing number of less than .1% to .11% does not represent mainstream science rejecting the central tenet of modern biology.
Well then i guess it would be up to you to let him know he's lost all credibility.
He can say whatever he wants and you can cut and paste this and other quotes as much as you like, it doesn't change the fact that you have repeatedly and disingenuously quote mined and in these occasions in which the quote is accurately representative, the quote is contradicted by the available evidence, e.g.:
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/
The polls consistently show that the overwhelming majority of practicing scientists accept evolution, and when the pool of scientists is reduced to those practicing in directly relevant fields (i.e. biology as opposed to physicists, etc), the percentage of those rejecting evolution is estimated at less than 1%. See e.g.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
Here is an idea, whenever you see 'awanderingscot' on a post, just ignore it, don't read it, don't make comments on it. Problem solved. You and the other hatethists on this blog don't like it when your myth is exposed, too bad. You wouldn't bother to respond at all if indeed your silly myth were a fact, but it's not.
wandering,
You are not exposing anything other than your poor comprehension. The fact that there are gaps in our knowledge of evolution in no way invalidates the fact that evolution happened and continues to happen, and it most certainly does not provide any support for creationism.
Do you have any evidence for creationism?
wandering
"You wouldn't bother to respond at all if indeed your silly myth were a fact, but it's not."
If creationism were so obvious why do need to attack evolution?
I will continue to point out every mistake you make as I wouldn't want anyone to be confused and think you know what your a talking about. Of course, anyone with a brain can read your posts and tell immediately you don't know the first thing about evolution.
Awanderingscot,
If someone posts obvious lies about the Bible, do you not speak up to rebut it?
– if that's what you want to call it, it's fine by me.
@LaBella
– what is your point?
– are you defending evolution again?
– how do you reconcile evolution with what scripture teaches?
scot
You finally said it, "– how do you reconcile evolution with what scripture teaches?"
You do not truely think for yourself. You accept the bible and try to justify what happens in the world according to that book.
Awanderingscot,
-My point is clear.
-Answer my question.
-If you do that, you'll understand the point.
@LaBella
– Evolution is a lie and i don't lie about it being a lie.
– Now tell me, if you believe you are a Christian, how do you reconcile evolution with what scripture teaches?
Awanderingscot:
-You did not answer my question.
I'm sorry, awanderingscot, but evolution is not a lie and you do lie about it being a lie.
@halero 9001
well hello there Dorian Mattar, trolling under a different name now eh?
Here is an idea: don't misrepresent actual science with statements that invariably demonstrate your ignorance of the topic. As long as those like yourself continue to post erroneous faith-based arguments of incredulity based in personal ignorance, I'll exercise my right to respond. I'd note that once again, by design or ignorance, you failed to substantively respond to any of the points raised above, from the alleged necessity of macromutation, to the miscomprehension of how taxonomic scale relates to PE/gradualism, to the erroneous claim that all mutation is necessarily harmful, etc, etc.
"– Evolution is a lie and i don't lie about it being a lie."
Sadly you don't even know when you're telling a lie. That is called being a pathological liar.
How's your research to support the creationism coming? Is it ready for peer-review?
redzoa
To suggest 99% of biologists accept evolution is a very sad statement. It is like saying 99% of fish live in water. There must be a sampling error as both numbers should be 100%.
What your number fails to address is how many biologists inappropriately apply the facts of evolution to areas evolution does not apply such as God or agency associated with first cause.
Believerfred,
You think scientists must agree on everything 100% for it to be valid?
Wow. Nothing is valid, in that case. Nothing.
Lebella
We are talking about standard evolution theory. How could you be a biologist and reject established theory. You may have some new theory in your head but that is as far it goes until you can prove it.
A physicist accepts limits such as Planck length and constants such as the the speed of light. We are not certain light speed is constant or measurements are possible below Planck length but we accept it otherwise our experiments begin to produce the results you see on this blog.
awanderingscot
I think you know that the majority of accepted evolution theory has been proven and accepted right? I do not accept the ridiculous extrapolations we see coming out of accepted theory and you can make strong valid arguments where such extrapolations lack acceptable scientific evidence.
Evolution theory all flows down the same rabbit hole and has overwhelming accepted evidence in support of all the tunnels down that hole. If you look at the Monarch butterfly science has done a great job following the routs, genetics and structure of the Monarch. Yet, science does not have a clue how offspring find an exact rout and destination never before seen or known. Anyone who claims there is no God because we can follow the exact rout of the Monarch does not understand science or is simply running from sin.
"To suggest 99% of biologists accept evolution is a very sad statement. It is like saying 99% of fish live in water. There must be a sampling error as both numbers should be 100%.
What your number fails to address is how many biologists inappropriately apply the facts of evolution to areas evolution does not apply such as God or agency associated with first cause."
I don't completely understand what your point is here. If you're suggesting it's sad that a trained, practicing biologist would reject the empirical physical evidence for evolution, then I completely agree. However, we can certainly point to a small fraction who reject evolution primarily for non-scientific, religious based rationales. I don't think we should ever expect 100% conformity within a given discipline, just as we know that if we sampled all fish in the world at this precise moment, there would be some small proportion which were not presently residing in water (e.g. the various "walking fish" which can survive for remarkably long periods on land). In other words, in both cases, we shouldn't expect 100% conformity.
Regarding extrapolating evolution into non-scientific fields, I agree some misapply the available scientific evidence in the attempt to bolster certain philosophical positions. However, where a theological position like literal creationism makes particularized claims regarding the natural world, these claims can be rightly refuted with the available scientific evidence. Furthermore, it is not unreasonable to carry over evidentiary standards from science (given its well-validated utility) to other fields. I don't believe it's reasonable to conclude, based on scientific methodologies, that a supernatural plane is impossible; nonetheless, given the absence of empirical evidence for a supernatural plane, it is certainly reasonable to conclude that its existence, as commonly defined in a most egregiously anthropocentric manner, is highly improbable.
Fred,
The fact that we're having this conversation at all is because there are some that do not accept it.
As I stated, it will never be 100%, and expecting it to be is not feasible.
fred, please apply your 100% theory to religion and explain why not all believers subscribe to the same delusions. Why don't 100% of all believers subscribe to the christian cult? Why don't all christian cult members use the same Babble?
redzoa
"where a theological position like literal creationism makes particularized claims regarding the natural world, these claims can be rightly refuted with the available scientific evidence"
=>I am not sure where you ended up the last time we discussed "Whales", "birds" and 'seed bearing trees" in Genesis. Science cannot refute the Biological classification used by Moses because we have no way of knowing what that was. We cannot demand that Moses (assumed author) adopt a homologous biological classification when his audience only understood analogous traits. Further, there is no need for God to educate Moses about a future classification as it adds nothing to the purpose of creation.
=>I don't think you can make a case to refute Genesis 1 and 2 as there is little information as to the process of creation. The audience today is interested in the process whereas the audience in days of Moses was interested in the Power of God in Genesis 1 and the personal relationship with God in Genesis 2.
Testing?
@bf – There is no requirement for some modern Linnaean classification to be able to distinguish a seed bearing plant from a non-seed bearing plant. Nor is any such requirement required to distinguish birds from non-birds, even if we were generous to include various other flying vertebrates. Same too of whales or just a really big fish. The fact remains that the order of these plainly identified forms as presented in Genesis is contradicted by the fossil record. Your argument works only if we accept that the author (Moses or God acting through Moses) was so completely ignorant of the natural world as to be effectively incapable of making such rudimentary distinctions; distinctions which are common place for even minimally successful indigenous hunting/gathering or agricultural tribes.
One might also add that it's a little ironic that this argument regarding the allegedly infallible divinely-inspired holy word of God is grounded in a claim of inherent v-agueness.
redzoa
Let the land produce vegetation (Day 3), let the water team with living creatures and let birds fly above....(Day 5), let the land produce living creatures then God created man to rule over them (Day 6). Genesis 1 shows God creating order to creation and giving life to creation. The green stuff on the ground, the living stuff in the water, the living stuff in the air, the living stuff on the ground all created for man and given to man. The greatest power in existence did this to bless man and in Genesis 2 the personal touch in detail. This is simple and this is the message about the tree of life by God not the process of common descent seen in branching divergence by Charles Darwin.
Charles Darwin wrote to a specific audience and with specific purpose as did Moses. Darwin's prime appeal was to man the animal whereas Moses appealed to man in the image of God with soul and spirit. As such the doctrine of infallibility is not about scientific fact rather infallible in revelation of soul and spirit, the readers true disposition of soul. It is infallible in bringing the seeker to look deep within for the truth of God not the truth the seeker desires. The word of God comes from holy ground not the observed codex. "In the beginning God" are the first 4 words in the Bible and it shouts out to the atheist and believer alike. Right then and there the receptiveness of your soul is revealed. The early Chosen Ones dare not even say the word God as it was so holy. This is the burning holiness of God we have lost. This is the proper reverence we have lost.
The Word of God is infallible to direct our souls and our ways. The Word of God is infallible as it presents the will of God for us to seek, to find out what it is saying to us. Not complicated it is simply about seeking the way of God, seeking God. The promised land was not entered even by Moses because life is about seeking God which reveals the image of God in us. Here the Word is infallible.
@bf – Yes, I'm aware of the order presented in Genesis; however, the fossil record clearly shows that marine life existed long before land vegetation and that seed-bearing plants arose well after both marine and land animals were present. That is, the forms presented on Day 3 arose well after those presented in Days 4 & 5. Furthermore, birds are the last of the vertebrate forms to appear; Day 5 forms came after Day 6 forms. The available fossil, anatomical and molecular evidence indicates that whales evolved from land animals. Yet the text, even if we exclude the specific reference to whales, indicates that all sea creatures great and small were created on Day 5 whereas the evidence indicates that all marine mammals arose after the appearance of land mammals. Again, Day 5 forms came after Day 6 forms. The order of Genesis and the forms identified are rather specific and they are contradicted by what is seen in the progression of life within the fossil record.
"It is infallible in bringing the seeker to look deep within for the truth of God not the truth the seeker desires."
I appreciate that a text need not be 100% factually accurate to provide a useful message and that a text should frequently be viewed through the lens of the target audience. However, here, the target audience is claimed to be not just the generations of Moses, but all subsequent generations as well. When one considers that the alleged divine inspiration for the text is claimed to be omnipotent and all knowing, there should be greater, not less, skepticism when the message would have been foreseen to present such a self-evident tendency for miscomprehension among the target audience. With all due respect, the rest of your post is just an apologetic side-step from the point you originally attempted to make, i.e. that the biblical account has not been contradicted by science. You're certainly ent-itled to resolve the v-agueness and ambiguity you effectively conceded in your earlier response by whatever means you desire, but in doing so, you're simply confirming that in addition to the specific details presented in your preferred holy book, even the underlying theological "purpose" is likewise subject to Rorschach-esque impositions and rationalizations at the whim of the reader. In other words, you are absolutely reading into the scripture the "truth" that you desire.
Whereas science invariably converges on unambiguous facts (e.g. DNA is the hereditary molecule, the earth revolves around the sun, etc), religious practices and interpretations have invariably diverged into an ever expanding number of sects all convinced they understand the "truth." This is a poor record for any text claimed to be divinely-inspired and an "infallible" guide by its various theologically distributed proponents. Like the order presented in Genesis, this pre-supposition of "infallibility" is not supported by the available evidence, particularly given the discrepancy among believers as to what is actually meant by "infallible."
redzoa
" The order of Genesis and the forms identified are rather specific"
=>No doubt the forms are specific as they are forms known to Moses that he and his audience could relate. Get real, there is no way creation myths could incorporate genotype-phenotype distinction into a symbolic picture language. The picture is plant forms, water forms, air forms, land forms all imaginable known forms created by God. You cannot impose molecular based form and structure upon a form and structure based on oral traditions of a symbolic language.
"and they are contradicted by what is seen in the progression of life within the fossil record."
=>One cannot correlate fossil records dependent upon on stratigraphy with a creation period of 7 days in Genesis that is independent of biostratigraphy and lithostratigraphy.
redzoa
"the rest of your post is just an apologetic side-step from the point you originally attempted to make"
=>no I was addressing your comment on infallibility and began with the contrast between Moses and Darwin.
"In other words, you are absolutely reading into the scripture the "truth" that you desire."
=>That is the infallibility of Scripture as you and I both do it which reveals our soul. Your myth of popular evolutionism is evident as is the truth of my myth of creationism.
@bf –
“Get real, there is no way creation myths could incorporate genotype-phenotype distinction into a symbolic picture language. The picture is plant forms, water forms, air forms, land forms all imaginable known forms created by God. You cannot impose molecular based form and structure upon a form and structure based on oral traditions of a symbolic language.”
I don’t know how to make this any clearer: the capacity to make distinctions between seed and non-seed plants, birds and non-birds, and whales and non-whales, does not require any modern technical knowledge. These are plainly self-evident external features that any 5 yr old can identify and distinguish and are common place distinctions recognized among even minimally successful hunter/gather and agrarian cultures. That we use modern methodologies to determine the order of appearance of forms and deduce relationships is irrelevant to the fact that the contradiction exists. It is further irrelevant as to to what we should reasonably expect from the author with respect to accuracy given the claim of alleged divinely-revealed knowledge of the events. The author of Genesis presents an order which is directly contradicted by the available physical evidence.
Again, your argument is based on the stupefying suggestion that the author was blind to or simply ignorant of these facially obvious characteristics and/or that the relevant language was incapable of any reasonably precise descriptions, thereby rendering the texts va-gue and ambiguous (just not for the claimed deeper theologicaly-derived purposes).
You can surely also claim that my account of the 2012 U.S. Presidential election in which I declare Romney prevailed was merely an attempt to provide some deeper meaning of my relationship with the electorate and the elected; however, my factual assertion is nonetheless demonstrably incorrect.
“One cannot correlate fossil records dependent upon on stratigraphy with a creation period of 7 days in Genesis that is independent of biostratigraphy and lithostratigraphy.”
This may be correct with respect to a literal 7 days, but then you are then faced with the as yet insurmountable problem of explaining how the fossil record came to exhibit a very distinctive progressive order stretching from single to complex multicellular vertebrate forms, where certain forms appear exclusively after other forms, and where this progressive order is corroborated by phylogenetic analyses of both extant and extinct forms (in addition to the host of other problems literal creationists have incessantly and unsuccessfully banged their collective heads against for decades upon decades). For the record, I had you pegged as a day-age or gap-theory creationist, but if you are claiming literalism, well then you might as well just cut to the chase and start referencing “worldviews,” argue “mysterious ways” and then begin with the litany of negative arguments of incredulity, and why all the evidence supporting evolution simply can’t be trusted because it conflicts with your preferred theological account.
“no I was addressing your comment on infallibility and began with the contrast between Moses and Darwin.”
With all due respect, if that was your point, it seemed rather irrelevant. No one is claiming anything Darwin ever penned to be infallible. Rather it is constantly subjected to scrutiny and those claims which have been shown to be incorrect are acknowledged.
“That is the infallibility of Scripture as you and I both do it which reveals our soul.”
I don’t look for some absolute “truth” in any writing and I do not begin any reading with an a priori purely religious rationale to perfectly absolve the text of any discrepancies which might present some direct or indirect conflict with a hoped for escape from mortality. Nonetheless, if this is your definition of infallibility, then it applies to every potentially perceptible thing and the word becomes meaningless as every interpretation of any thing is a construct of both the external stimulus and some “soul-revealing” internal calculus.
“Your myth of popular evolutionism is evident as is the truth of my myth of creationism.”
First, I have no idea what you mean by “popular evolutionism.” I am a proponent of evolution the demonstrable scientific fact and the scientific theory of evolution which concordantly explains extant and extinct biodiversity. Suffice it to say that my “myth” is supported by empirical physical evidence from every relevant scientific discipline. It is supported by an understanding of the relevant foundational mechanisms. Furthermore, it is validated in successful prediction and direct application in a variety of fields. And most importantly, my “myth” is amenable to actual falsification. The same simply cannot be said of your myth of creationism which is not supported by empirical physical, invariably relies on the invocation of magic as its foundational mechanism, is wholly and conveniently unfalsifiable and has but a single utility: fundamentalist apologetics. You keep using this word “truth.” I do not think it means what you think it means . . .
redzoa
"That we use modern methodologies to determine the order of appearance of forms and deduce relationships is irrelevant to the fact that the contradiction exists.
=>No, the contradiction exists because you assume the Bible attempted to order creation as if God used the process of evolution to create. God may or may not have used that process. The grouping presented was land vegetation, water creatures, air creatures and land creatures.
"accuracy given the claim of alleged divinely-revealed knowledge of the events."
=>Moses put the beans in the bean jar, pinto beans vs navy beans was not relevant to to creating the picture of an all powerful creator.
"The author of Genesis presents an order which is directly contradicted by the available physical evidence."
=>Only if the author was attempting to write a kindergarten level appropriate book on Darwin's Tree of Life using 6 days and 4 Kingdoms without giving Haeckel a head start on his tree.
How do you expect to be taken seriously when you act like a 5 year old and use name calling as a means of defense? Fortunately all you do is turn people away from your belief system...thank you!
Between you and kermi, I'm not sure who is the bigger child...you both have tantrums of a 5 year old and you both show complete ignorance of facts!
So scotty found a quote from a very biased scientist that says what scotty wants to hear. There is nothing to actually substantiate the claim, but for scotty the claim is more important than the truth. I don't know why anyone bothers with scotty. He's a useless troll.
53 Has anyone believed us
or seen the mighty power
of the Lord in action?
2 Like a young plant or a root
that sprouts in dry ground,
the servant grew up
obeying the Lord.
He wasn’t some handsome king.
Nothing about the way he looked
made him attractive to us.
3 He was hated and rejected;
his life was filled with sorrow
and terrible suffering.
No one wanted to look at him.
We despised him and said,
“He is a nobody!”
4 He suffered and endured
great pain for us,
but we thought his suffering
was punishment from God.
5 He was wounded and crushed
because of our sins;
by taking our punishment,
he made us completely well.
6 All of us were like sheep
that had wandered off.
We had each gone our own way,
but the Lord gave him
the punishment we deserved.
7 He was painfully abused,
but he did not complain.
He was silent like a lamb
being led to the butcher,
as quiet as a sheep
having its wool cut off.
8 He was condemned to death
without a fair trial.
Who could have imagined
what would happen to him?
His life was taken away
because of the sinful things
my people[a] had done.
9 He wasn’t dishonest or violent,
but he was buried in a tomb
of cruel and rich people.[b]
10 The Lord decided his servant
would suffer as a sacrifice
to take away the sin
and guilt of others.
Now the servant will live
to see his own descendants.[c]
He did everything
the Lord had planned.
11 By suffering, the servant
will learn the true meaning
of obeying the Lord.
Although he is innocent,
he will take the punishment
for the sins of others,
so that many of them
will no longer be guilty.
12 The Lord will reward him
with honor and power
for sacrificing his life.
Others thought he was a sinner,
but he suffered for our sins
and asked God to forgive us.
The prophecy concerning Jesus from the 53rd chapter of Isaiah.
Not quite a cubit, but not bad, Robert...
South Korea seems to be a sort of religious vacuum – drawing in all sorts of cults and sects. Why is that? Were they not afflicted with their own religions before all this stuff came along?
Traditional Buddhism doesn't usually afflict anyone. The virus that is christianity, can't make the same claim...
People have used that religion, which promotes peace (like Christianity does) to commit crimes against humanity:
http://shambhalasun.com/sunspace/buddhists-betray-the-teachings-jack-kornfield-on-the-anti-muslim-violence-in-burma/
So it is not like Hindus, Christians, Humanists, Deists, Jews, atheists, agnostics, non-believers and others don't have blood on their hands, too. If you look at the ideals of most of these people it includes peace. But way too often that isn't the result. There are examples in each group of people who carry this out. For me, I have to find which one lets me carry it out in the best way.
Gasin is a large faith in Korea
Nulgubjisin is still venerated in many rule communities, as is Samsin still one of the most venerated gods in both south and north Korea, although it is illegal in Korea. the cities however are predominantly atheist, ancestral venerators as is the bulk of Asia.
those who follow their ancestors are atheist but not faithless.
You have brains in your head.
You have feet in your shoes.
You can steer yourself
any direction you choose.
You're on your own.
And you know what you know.
And YOU are the one who'll decide where to go....
– Dr. Seuss, (Oh! The Places You'll Go!)
Shouldn't you be posting lyrics from the likes of Marilyn Manson instead of Dr Seuss?
Where is the 'evil' in your name justified?
Don't make me go all ICP on you here.
I've noticed that you like to bust on me for not being (pinky to lips) 'Evil' enough. Maybe this handle is my attempt to distract people from my true trickster nature?
That would truely be evil.
I stand corrected.