Right and Wrong

[Erica in PA]

I'm sorry it has taken me awhile to reply. This thread has gotten so huge that I'm having a hard time navigating it, and I "lost" this part of the conversation for awhile!

 

Thanks so much for clarifying, and it's so great that we both came to a clearer understanding of the other's pov.

 

:001_smile:

 

Thanks to you too, GretaLynne! I was hoping you'd see my last post, because I felt that we shared a good, productive exchange, as well. It is good to know that we've understood each other. All the best to you!

[Jenny in Atl]

Eliana, your post has me curious. What does Judaism make of the story of Job? My concordance says that Satan in what we call the Old Testament means "the adversary." There is also a reference to Satan in Zechariah 3.

 

Some quick looking for things I thought meant Satan are surprising me, I'd like to hear your take on it.

 

I'm sure Eliana will add more, but here is a quick link with some explanation.

 

http://www.gracecathedral.org/enrichment/brush_excerpts/brush_20050524.shtml

[muffinmom]

For you to say that whether I like it or not, believe or not, your view is correct is slightly insulting.

 

I actually did not say the words you are attributing to me, and I assure you that I did not mean it in an insulting way at all. So I'm very sorry for it to have come across that way. If I had used the words you attributed to me, yes, I would have been insulted too.

 

All I meant was this: That we are made in His image is what God says about Himself and how He created us. (You don't have to believe that it was He who said it, but it is recorded as such). I was just saying that (and I don't say you have to believe this) IF God is who He says He is, then it is possible that some of what you talk about that compels you (love, respect, etc.) could have been given to you by Him. IF He exists and works in this way, it is possible that you might experience gifts from Him without realizing that it is from Him. That's all I meant. No insults.

 

And when you speak of our overtones of pride and arrogance and inability to reckon morally without a Biblical compass, that, I'm afraid, is a little bit personal. And I'm not seeing how a strong-ish reaction would not be a surprise.

 

If you read back over SOME (not all) of the posts by non-Christians (I'm not pointing to yours) you have to admit there are just as many strong assertions that the way they believe is "the way it is" (or perhaps, more accurately, the way Christians believe is NOT the way it is--anything else is open for debate**as an example, please notice the post following this one**), and Christians are too foolishly busy following some made-up deity to see that. That tone is the result of pride and arrogance--all I was saying is that non-Christians have just as much of it as Christians. Please hear me: This is not directed personally at you. I'm including myself in it. It is a human problem. Pride and arrogance have been evident in both Christian and non-Christian posts. It's OK for us all to admit this.

 

 

When you continue to say "This is how it is, and if you will only seek with an open heart, you would know it," it becomes somewhat of a dig in my side.

 

I honestly don't believe I have said or implied any such thing. Not my intention at all.

 

I have only said, don't judge God by religious people (I'm not saying that YOU personally are--just responding to comments made on this thread). If anyone is interested to seek God, then let the focus be on Him and not the people who don't always get it right. If you are not interested in seeking God--fine, no pressure. That is your prerogative. Your acceptance or rejection of God (or belief in His existence or not) does not involve me. No one is saying that you must accept Him. At least I'm not. I hear you when you say you have sought diligently but not found what you were looking for. I hear you and I accept it.

 

Do I believe that God exists? Yeah. Do I wish people could have the same experience of Him that I have had? Absolutely. Can I create that for them? No. That's not up to me.

 

I'm only answering the question that Phred put forth initially. I'm answering according to my belief, and in fact we are all answering according to our beliefs. You certainly do not have to agree with me, but when someone is questioning the why behind my belief, it seems reasonable that I can say why without it having to be taken as an insult. I have tried very much to not use insulting words or tones. I have zero intention or desire to hurt or insult anyone here. I hope you can see that.

 

I do appreciate you letting me clarify, because if you felt insulted, you may not be the only one, and I wouldn't want that to go unaddressed.

 

Whew. Sorry...long post.

[Phred]

We all interpret evidence according to our presuppositions, correct? I, a creationist, don't buy the idea that "all evidence" points to old earth/evolution, because I start with different presuppositions. The evidence says something different to you because you interpret it according your own presuppositions. It's really that simple. Belief in either theory requires faith, since no one was there to observe what actually happened. The average person who has attended American public school has been so steeped in evolutionary philosophy since day one that the above statements seem ridiculous to him...What? Who can say this in the face of the *overwhelming* *scientific* evidence to the contrary??!! Unthinkable! Such a person might be unaware of the many educated and respected scientists (a growing number, I believe) who actually believe in intelligent design.

 

To be perfectly frank (although I'm sure this statement will garner many groans and shrieks of "what a freak!"), I'm hazarding a guess that people in the future will look back on this period in history and wonder how people could have bought into Darwinism (evolutionary theory) for so long. Intelligent design has become the "elephant in the living room" for many evolutionary scientists. It's not going away anytime soon. Now, have at me!! :tongue_smilie:

No. You're being misled. Misled by lies, strawmen and what you wish to hear. I'm sorry but that's as plain as it can be said. I.D. does not exist. It's not even a guess much less a scientific theory. There are no papers about it, no studies... it's just a bunch of people trying to sound scientific about God. They had their chance in the Dover, PA trial and they were pathetic. Here's what the judge, a George W. Bush appointee had to say:

 

• "For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child" (page 24)

 

• "A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." (page 26)

 

• "The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism" (page 31)

 

• "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." (page 43)

 

• "After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community." (page 64)

There will be no revolution, there is no elephant in the room. I.D. is over but for the yelling.

[Storm Bay]

No. You're being misled. Misled by lies, strawmen and what you wish to hear. I'm sorry but that's as plain as it can be said. I.D. does not exist. It's not even a guess much less a scientific theory. There are no papers about it, no studies... it's just a bunch of people trying to sound scientific about God. They had their chance in the Dover, PA trial and they were pathetic. Here's what the judge, a George W. Bush appointee had to say:

.

 

And are we all convinced that scientific evolution doesn't do the same?

 

Well, there are some secular scientists and philosophers who claim that about Darwin's General Theory (aka macroevolution.) Just as their are some who question the assertion that the theory of macroevolution is falsifiable. So, there are some NONreligious scientists et al who might make the same strawmen assertion you mention. btw, ID isn't the same as Christian theology, but just making a point. I don't accept ID, either.

 

There are some who question homology. So far, has anyone found genetic or embryonic proof of this? For example, why does gastrulation occur differently in different vertebrate classes? Even the sites are different. In sharks, the alimentary canal is formed from the root of the embryonic gut cavity, in sharks, from the floor, in lampreys, elsewhere etc, etc. Now, this isn't the only example. Other examples of this are the vertebrate kidney, the ureter, etc.

 

If evolution is a slow process, why do we have such neat and tidy categories of genuses? Why not a messier looking tree?

 

How about paleontologists' "dirty little secret"--that virtually every known fossil is a fully formed type, with no intermediates? Or the fact that skeletal remains only give a small part of the story? For eg, can a fossil tell you if a mammal was placental or marsupial? Without soft tissue remains, it's extremely difficult to demonstrate that the given sequence of events proposed in the evolutionary tree is as plausible as is given. You might say that believing in evolution based on microevolution is a leap of faith.

 

As for the horse one, in order for it to be a gradual change, there would need to be intermediate types. Also, some might argue, basesd on the fact that there are still foals born with 3 toes, that this might simply be microevolution.

 

My point being that some might call the assertions of macroevolutionists misleading lies, not to talk you out of something you are so deeply committed to.

[Jenny in Atl]

And are we all convinced that scientific evolution doesn't do the same?

 

Well, there are some secular scientists and philosophers who claim that about Darwin's General Theory (aka macroevolution.) Just as their are some who question the assertion that the theory of macroevolution is falsifiable. So, there are some NONreligious scientists et al who might make the same strawmen assertion you mention. btw, ID isn't the same as Christian theology, but just making a point. I don't accept ID, either.

 

There are some who question homology. So far, has anyone found genetic or embryonic proof of this? For example, why does gastrulation occur differently in different vertebrate classes? Even the sites are different. In sharks, the alimentary canal is formed from the root of the embryonic gut cavity in sharks, from the floor in lampreys, etc, etc. Now, this isn't the only example. Other examples of this are the vertebrate kidney, the ureter, etc.

 

If evolution is a slow process, why do we have such neat and tidy categories of genuses? Why not a messier looking tree?

 

How about paleontologist's dirty little secret--that virtually every known fossil is a fully formed type, with no intermediates? Or the fact that skeletal remains only give a small part of the story? For eg, can a fossil tell you if a mammal was placental or marsupial? Without soft tissue remains, it's extremely difficult to demonstrate that the given sequence of events proposed in the evolutionary tree is as plausible as is given. You might say that believing in evolution based on microevolution is a leap of faith.

 

As for the horse one, in order for it to be a gradual change, there would need to be intermediate types. Also, some might argue, basesd on the fact that there are still foals born with 3 toes, that this might simply be microevolution.

 

My point being that some might call the assertions of macroevolutionists misleading lies, not to talk you out of something you are so deeply committed to.

 

What about the recent findings of the Platypus?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/science/08platypus.html

[Storm Bay]

What about the recent findings of the Platypus?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/science/08platypus.html

 

Sorry, I can't read this without logging in, but if there's a way to read this elsewhere, I will. However, I'd prefer to see it in a scientific journal. In my experience the media doesn't always do much justice to science.

 

At any rate, if this contradicts what I've said (I haven't seen the data yet) one example isn't enough, IMO. That wouldn't answer the questions I asked about homology, for example. I only gave a couple of areas where people question macroevolution--there are entire books on the subject.

[Phred]

And are we all convinced that scientific evolution doesn't do the same?

Yes.

 

Well, there are some secular scientists and philosophers who claim that about Darwin's General Theory (aka macroevolution.) Just as their are some who question the assertion that the theory of macroevolution is falsifiable. So, there are some NONreligious scientists et al who might make the same strawmen assertion you mention. btw, ID isn't the same as Christian theology, but just making a point. I don't accept ID, either.

 

There are some who question homology. So far, has anyone found genetic or embryonic proof of this? For example, why does gastrulation occur differently in different vertebrate classes? Even the sites are different. In sharks, the alimentary canal is formed from the root of the embryonic gut cavity, in sharks, from the floor, in lampreys, elsewhere etc, etc. Now, this isn't the only example. Other examples of this are the vertebrate kidney, the ureter, etc.

 

If evolution is a slow process, why do we have such neat and tidy categories of genuses? Why not a messier looking tree?

 

How about paleontologists' "dirty little secret"--that virtually every known fossil is a fully formed type, with no intermediates? Or the fact that skeletal remains only give a small part of the story? For eg, can a fossil tell you if a mammal was placental or marsupial? Without soft tissue remains, it's extremely difficult to demonstrate that the given sequence of events proposed in the evolutionary tree is as plausible as is given. You might say that believing in evolution based on microevolution is a leap of faith.

 

As for the horse one, in order for it to be a gradual change, there would need to be intermediate types. Also, some might argue, basesd on the fact that there are still foals born with 3 toes, that this might simply be microevolution.

 

My point being that some might call the assertions of macroevolutionists misleading lies, not to talk you out of something you are so deeply committed to.

You're asking misleading questions based upon false presuppositions. I'm committed to evidence, not the conclusions. You should be to.

[Jenny in Atl]

Sorry, here is the article. I heard it the other night on NPR and again saw it here. Just interesting....

 

May 8, 2008

Platypus Looks Strange on the Inside, Too

 

By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD

If it has a bill and webbed feet like a duck, lays eggs like a bird or a reptile but also produces milk and has a coat of fur like a mammal, what could the genetics of the duck-billed platypus possibly be like? Well, just as peculiar: an amalgam of genes reflecting significant branching and transitions in evolution.

 

An international scientific team, which announced the first decoding of the platypus genome on Wednesday, said the findings provided “many clues to the function and evolution of all mammalian genomes,†including that of humans, and should “inspire rapid advances in other investigations of mammalian biology and evolution.â€

 

The research is described in Thursday’s issue of the journal Nature by a group of almost 100 scientists led by Wesley C. Warren, a geneticist at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. The single subject of the study was a female platypus named Glennie, a resident of Glenrock Station in New South Wales, Australia, whose DNA was collected and analyzed.

 

The platypus, native to Australia, is so odd that when the first specimens were sent to Europe in the 19th century, scientists suspected a hoax. It was classified as a mammal, one of only two monotremes (echidna is the other) living today that are offshoots of the main mammalian lineage. The divergence occurred some 166 million years ago from primitive ancestors combining features of both mammals and reptiles.

 

“What is unique about the platypus is that it has retained a large overlap between two very different classifications, while later mammals lost the features of reptiles,†Dr. Warren said in an interview.

 

In their investigation of the platypus genetic blueprint, the scientists found that its genome contains about 18,500 genes, similar to other vertebrates and about two-thirds the size of the human genome. The platypus shares 82 percent of its genes with the human, mouse, dog, opossum and chicken. Some repeated elements in the genome, the scientists noted, hold hints as to the chronology of changes in the platypus.

 

Of particular interest, the researchers reported, the analysis identified families of genes that link the platypus to reptiles (like those for egg-laying, vision and venom production), as well as to mammals (antibacterial proteins and lactation). The platypus lacks nipples; the young nurse through the abdominal skin.

 

One surprise was finding genes responsible for sensitive odor receptors. As a primarily aquatic animal, the platypus was already known to rely on electrosensory receptors in its bill to detect faint electric fields emitted by underwater prey. So why the considerable ability to sense odors? The scientists speculate that it may involve sexual communication or the use of water-soluble odorants in navigating and hunting underwater.

 

Richard K. Wilson, director of the Genome Sequencing Center at Washington University, said that the comparison of the platypus genes with those of other mammals was the beginning of an examination of how “genes have been conserved throughout evolution.â€

 

The project, involving scientists from eight countries, was primarily financed by the National Human Genome Research Institute in the United States. Its director, Francis S. Collins, said, “As weird as this animal looks, its genome sequence is priceless for understanding how mammalian biological processes evolved.â€

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

 

The project, involving scientists from eight countries, was primarily financed by the National Human Genome Research Institute in the United States. Its director, Francis S. Collins, said, “As weird as this animal looks, its genome sequence is priceless for understanding how mammalian biological processes evolved.â€

 

You mean Francis S. Collins, the evangelical Christian? That Francis Collins? ;)

 

I'm sorry -- I'm not trying to be flip. I'm just in a weird mood, like before a board change on the old system. Forgive me? (But either way, do read the hyperlink.)

[genie]

 

Do I believe that God exists? Yeah. Do I wish people could have the same experience of Him that I have had? Absolutely. Can I create that for them? No. That's not up to me.

 

 

 

So then who is it up to? God? Why does he then choose to give some people an "experience of Him" and not others? Especially if they are earnestly seeking?

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

 

 

I actually did not say the words you are attributing to me, and I assure you that I did not mean it in an insulting way at all. So I'm very sorry for it to have come across that way. If I had used the words you attributed to me, yes, I would have been insulted too.

 

 

 

In reading over your posts, I'm just going to have to accept your clarifications, because I am honestly still not sure how I could have misunderstood your specific words. But I can and do accept sincerely that I may be completely missing the meaning of those words.

 

If you prefer further clarification on my part, I'd be happy to let you know the specific (and I thought very clear) sentences I referred to, but otherwise, I'm stepping away from the exchange. (At least, here in public. I did reply to your PM. :))

 

Peace.

[muffinmom]

So then who is it up to? God? Why does he then choose to give some people an "experience of Him" and not others? Especially if they are earnestly seeking?

 

That's a good question and one I couldn't possibly answer. Scripture does say that those who seek Him will find Him.

 

What I do know is that a million different factors influence someone's "experience of God"--past negative or positive life experiences, parental influences, past presuppositions, will, trust, and who knows how many other things.

 

As far as I can tell, God reveals Himself in various ways, and people see that and make of it what they will. So I guess God makes the first move, and the next move is ours. After that, I don't know.

 

But that's just my opinion.

[genie]

That's a good question and one I couldn't possibly answer. Scripture does say that those who seek Him will find Him.

 

What I do know is that a million different factors influence someone's "experience of God"--past negative or positive life experiences, parental influences, past presuppositions, will, trust, and who knows how many other things.

 

As far as I can tell, God reveals Himself in various ways, and people see that and make of it what they will. So I guess God makes the first move, and the next move is ours. After that, I don't know.

 

But that's just my opinion.

 

But by definition, God knows a person's past negative or positive life experiences, parental influences, etc. He knows what it would take to reveal himself to any given person in a personal way that only they would recognize. So he chooses not to? He decides to reveal himself in a way that he knows that person, no matter how earnestly he may be seeking God, will be unable to recognize?

[Phred]

That's a good question and one I couldn't possibly answer. Scripture does say that those who seek Him will find Him.

 

What I do know is that a million different factors influence someone's "experience of God"--past negative or positive life experiences, parental influences, past presuppositions, will, trust, and who knows how many other things.

 

As far as I can tell, God reveals Himself in various ways, and people see that and make of it what they will. So I guess God makes the first move, and the next move is ours. After that, I don't know.

 

But that's just my opinion.

Well... here's one.

 

Why doesn't God every heal amputees? We hear of all these miraculous cures and God revealing himself to some people but not others... so we look for clear and concise examples of God. One would be if a person who lost a limb were to grow it back. Why doesn't that ever happen? No "I feel God in my life" type of things that can me misinterpreted... but a clear sign that can't be misinterpreted.

 

Why doesn't God heal amputees?

[Greta]

Just as their are some who question the assertion that the theory of macroevolution is falsifiable.

 

There are some who question homology. So far, has anyone found genetic or embryonic proof of this?

 

If evolution is a slow process, why do we have such neat and tidy categories of genuses? Why not a messier looking tree?

 

How about paleontologists' "dirty little secret"--that virtually every known fossil is a fully formed type, with no intermediates? Or the fact that skeletal remains only give a small part of the story?

 

We all interpret evidence according to our presuppositions, correct?

 

The evidence says something different to you because you interpret it according your own presuppositions.

 

Belief in either theory requires faith, since no one was there to observe what actually happened.

 

Such a person might be unaware of the many educated and respected scientists (a growing number, I believe) who actually believe in intelligent design.

 

Sorry ladies. But I'm far too educated on the topic of biology to fall for any of these intellectually dishonest tricks you're trying to pull here. Ignore the evidence then claim there is none. Argue against conclusions that evolutionary theory doesn't even predict. Keep repeating the same old tired arguments against evolution that were refuted decades ago. Claim that two sides are on equal footing when one has overwhelming, converging, testable, empirical evidence from numerous fields of science compiled over centuries by people who have dedicated their whole lives to understanding scientific principle, and the other has not one iota of evidence. I've heard it all before. Have at it.

 

But just so you know, you're certainly not going to win *this* agnostic over to theism by doing this. If anything, you'll send me running to the atheists.

[muffinmom]

But by definition, God knows a person's past negative or positive life experiences, parental influences, etc. He knows what it would take to reveal himself to any given person in a personal way that only they would recognize. So he chooses not to? He decides to reveal himself in a way that he knows that person, no matter how earnestly he may be seeking God, will be unable to recognize?

 

 

Let me say up front that I cannot speak for God on this--only my observations in life and in Scripture.

 

What I have observed is that God reveals Himself however He chooses to and that some people recognize it, some don't; some people sort of recognize it but choose not to pursue it for various reasons.

 

If you look at Jesus' life, He spoke often in parables--stories that stated truth in figurative terms but didn't spoonfeed. Some listeners said, "Great story!" and went on about their way. Some said, "There is more to that story....but what?" Those people recognized truth in it but maybe didn't understand completely, so they followed Him further to see what it was about. Those who came closer, He revealed more of Himself to. The invitation was to simply follow Him (meaning you might not know where He is going), not to have it all revealed at once.

 

For what it's worth...just what I've observed.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

HaSatan (the adversary) is, metaphorically speaking, G-d's prosecuting attorney - who, acting as G-d's shaliach (agent?), brings the case(s) against us (as individuals and as a people).

 

Depending on how the term is used, it can refer to our individual yetzer hara (that part of ourselves which pulls us towards transgression)

 

Satan can be used generically to mean an opponent or adversary.

 

[And Lucifer is Yishaiyahu, is a reference to the king of Bavel at the time.]

 

As a malach (angel), HaSatan is an expression of G-d's will or intention, not an independent agent - a malach is *by definition* incapable of independent thought/action... one might view them as a metaphorical representation of aspects of G-d/G-d's will.

 

 

Iyov in particular... well, let me share a medrash:

 

When Paro wanted a solution to his 'Jewish problem', he turned to his three top advisors: Bilaam - who argued for extermination of the male babies, Yisro -who, at risk of his life defended the Jews.. .and ended up fleeing to Midyan to escape Paro's wrath (and, eventually ended up as Moshe's father-in-law), and Iyov... who was silent.

 

Iyov was a wealthy philanthropist; a good, faithful, righteous man; one who took great care to distance himself from even a hint of wrongdoing... and yet G-d 'prosecuted' him....

 

Even though Iyov is most often considered allegorical, we take seriously the idea that G-d 'works' midah-kneged-midah (measure for measure) - that how we act, judge, deal, treat others is, so to speak, a way of choosing how we wish to be judged.

 

Iyov was silent as others suffered - he did not cry out... to either G-d, l'havdil, Paro... he thought that there was no point. But near the end of Sefer Iyov, he does cry out, at last -and, we are told, learns that had he felt the suffering of others as he felt his own, he would have cried out then as well.

 

 

This is, as all of my too hasty posts have been, over-simplified... I am sorry! I hope I have made my hashkafa more rather than less clear...

 

Thank you, may I ask where is the reference to Paro and his 'Jewish problem' found?

 

I myself have felt that Job, in spite of his protestations, sinned by what Christians would call spiritual pride. Your expansion of the story is very enlightening.

[Storm Bay]

Sorry ladies. But I'm far too educated on the topic of biology to fall for any of these intellectually dishonest tricks you're trying to pull here. Ignore the evidence then claim there is none. Argue against conclusions that evolutionary theory doesn't even predict. Keep repeating the same old tired arguments against evolution that were refuted decades ago. Claim that two sides are on equal footing when one has overwhelming, converging, testable, empirical evidence from numerous fields of science compiled over centuries by people who have dedicated their whole lives to understanding scientific principle, and the other has not one iota of evidence. I've heard it all before. Have at it.

 

But just so you know, you're certainly not going to win *this* agnostic over to theism by doing this. If anything, you'll send me running to the atheists.

 

 

Actually, I put in my post that I didn't expect to change anyone's mind, I was merely asking questions. If we can't question, what's the point? My only point was that 2 sides can claim strawmen. As for being called "intellectually dishonest", that's an insult. I've read posts here by atheists about the Bible, but I don't call them "intellectually dishonest" because they disagree.

 

I'm guessing you haven't read my posts or where I came from since I saw these holes myself when I wasn't a Christian at all, but an agnostic, evolutionary believing biology student in a secular, evolutionary believing, liberal college where none of my professors offered any explanation other than evolution. Also, it was a PALEONTOLOGIST who told us, over and over, that there were no links in the fossil record, not a preacher. Why can't I ask questions like these? I've examined the data extremely closely, and not in newspapers like the NYTimes, or even in the simplified Scientific American. Is there something dishonest about examining data and coming to a different conclusion than the majority? How can teaching only ONE scientific explanation for the origins of life be intellectually honest?

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

I'm sure Eliana will add more, but here is a quick link with some explanation.

 

http://www.gracecathedral.org/enrichment/brush_excerpts/brush_20050524.shtml

 

Hey, thanks! I've read two of Michael Macrone's books. I'll have to check this one out.

[Julie Herbster]

Sorry ladies. But I'm far too educated on the topic of biology to fall for any of these intellectually dishonest tricks you're trying to pull here. Ignore the evidence then claim there is none. Argue against conclusions that evolutionary theory doesn't even predict. Keep repeating the same old tired arguments against evolution that were refuted decades ago. Claim that two sides are on equal footing when one has overwhelming, converging, testable, empirical evidence from numerous fields of science compiled over centuries by people who have dedicated their whole lives to understanding scientific principle, and the other has not one iota of evidence. I've heard it all before. Have at it.

 

But just so you know, you're certainly not going to win *this* agnostic over to theism by doing this. If anything, you'll send me running to the atheists.

GretaLynne, I must confess that this post mystifies me. I'm not trying to "pull any tricks" at all. Nor am I trying to convince anyone of my viewpoint. I'm surprised you can assert this, since I have even acknowledged that scientific evidence is not what causes one to believe that there is a God or that there is no God, since belief either way is outside the realm of reason. I do stand by my assertion that intelligent design is the "elephant in the living room" to evolutionary theorists today. I'm no biologist, but I have read widely enough, from a variety of sources on both sides of the issue, to know that ID is making a comeback. Be that as it may, I am making no assertions that the evidence (for ID) will convert anyone (skeptic, unbeliever, etc.) to a belief in God. That is a matter of faith.

 

My main point in this discussion has been that one tends to interpret evidence in light of his/her presuppositions. At no time have I tried to use scientific evidence to convince anyone of God's existence; in fact, I have asserted that accomplishing this is impossible, since belief in God (and belief that there is no God) are decisions that lie beyond the realm of reason. (I think the post you referenced above was actually in response to something Phred and I were discussing, but I could be wrong.)

 

Now, about that evidence...I'm curious about something; maybe you could explain yourself further. You said,

Claim that two sides are on equal footing when one has overwhelming, converging, testable, empirical evidence from numerous fields of science compiled over centuries by people who have dedicated their whole lives to understanding scientific principle, and the other has not one iota of evidence.

Evolutionary theory has been around for, what, maybe a century and a half? How, then, can you say that empirical, biological evidence for evolution has been compiled over centuries? What kind of evidence are you talking about? You are much more informed in biology than I am; care to explain? I am aware of certain geological studies about the age of the earth; I'm actually open to believing in an older earth; the book of Genesis seems to allow for that. I'm interested mainly in the biological evidence you alluded to.

[Storm Bay]

Sorry, here is the article. I heard it the other night on NPR and again saw it here. Just interesting....

 

May 8, 2008

Platypus Looks Strange on the Inside, Too

 

.”

 

Thanks for putting this here, it was very interesting. Not enough to change my mind, but good food for thought. Actually, the genetic similarities to mammals and also some with reptiles makes a lot of sense, and the platypus is one of the most interesting land animals there is. I did notice, however, that they started and ended with evolution as if that were the only intelligent and plausible explanation, and I don't think that that alone is enough to disprove ID (which isn't my belief) or a Creator, nor to prove macroevolution. I think there are intelligent people in all 3 camps.

[Greta]

My only point was that 2 sides can claim strawmen.

 

Sure, two sides can claim it. That doesn't mean both sides make a valid claim.

 

As for being called "intellectually dishonest", that's an insult.

I'm sorry. It honestly wasn't my intention to insult you. I have read similar arguments/questions from people who tell deliberate lies about evolution in order to sway public opinion. I thought that's what you were doing. If you were not and your questions were sincere, then I sincerely apologize.

 

I'm guessing you haven't read my posts or where I came from since I saw these holes myself when I wasn't a Christian at all, but an agnostic, evolutionary believing biology student in a secular, evolutionary believing, liberal college where

I admit, I have not, and I know nothing of your background.

 

none of my professors offered any explanation other than evolution.

I'm curious if you expected science professors in other fields to offer explanations other than the ones that are universally accepted by scientists -- like gravity, atomic theory, etc.

 

Also, it was a PALEONTOLOGIST who told us, over and over, that there were no links in the fossil record, not a preacher.

It's absolutely inexcusable that s/he left his/her students with such a false impression. I would encourage you to study the evidence for yourself, and not rely on the word of this one poor teacher. You can start by searching the pages on transitional forms on the TalkOrigins website. Then I would recommend the book Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins. He gives this topic a very thorough and effective treatment.

 

Why can't I ask questions like these? I've examined the data extremely closely, and not in newspapers like the NYTimes, or even in the simplified Scientific American. Is there something dishonest about examining data and coming to a different conclusion than the majority?

Asking questions is good. Again, I've seen questions very similar to those posed only to deceive people about what evolution is and how it works, so I thought that was your intention. And I agree with you 100% that this isn't decided by a majority (even though the majority argues the same point I do). It's a matter of EVIDENCE, not consensus or majority.

 

How can teaching only ONE scientific explanation for the origins of life be intellectually honest?

When only one explanation has proof to back it up. The other explanation which you are defending is NOT a scientific one and has absolutely no place in a science classroom. The definition of science, it's raison d'etre, is to find natural explanations for observed phenomena. Scientists do NOT throw up their hands and say "I don't get this, it's too complicated, it must be something supernatural causing it!" That just isn't science.

 

. . . I have even acknowledged that scientific evidence is not what causes one to believe that there is a God or that there is no God, since belief either way is outside the realm of reason.

 

I can accept that reasonable people can believe in God without evidence and on pure faith. But *rejecting* reason in the name of faith is something quite different to me. That's really the only point I was trying to make, and I should have made it simply and concisely and then stopped. I've gone on far too long and argued more stridently than I had intended to.

 

I do stand by my assertion that intelligent design is the "elephant in the living room" to evolutionary theorists today. I'm no biologist, but I have read widely enough, from a variety of sources on both sides of the issue, to know that ID is making a comeback.

It's making a "comeback" due to political reasons, not scientific ones. That's the only reason it's getting any attention at all, among the public or among scientists. In fact, for quite a long time, scientists gave it no attention whatsoever because it deserved none on intellectual grounds. Recently they have come to realize that it is gaining acceptance due to the poor state of science education in this country, and many have started to realize that whether it "deserves" attention or not, it desperately needs it.

 

My main point in this discussion has been that one tends to interpret evidence in light of his/her presuppositions.

If you're talking about laypersons, I suppose that is true. But scientists tend to interpret evidence in the light of reason, and those interpretations are subject to rigorous testing by other skeptical scientists.

 

Now, about that evidence...I'm curious about something; maybe you could explain yourself further. You said, Evolutionary theory has been around for, what, maybe a century and a half? How, then, can you say that empirical, biological evidence for evolution has been compiled over centuries?

I concede that was very sloppy on my part. I was thinking about how even though Darwin is the name we associate with evolution, evolution had been postulated for a long time before he came along (taxonomy, etc). He wasn't the one who discovered the idea of evolution, but he was the one who discovered how evolution worked. But much of what he discovered revealed the fallacies in the previous theories of evolution, so perhaps I should not count this as really contributing. I should have indeed said a century and a half rather than centuries. I sincerely apologize.

 

What kind of evidence are you talking about? You are much more informed in biology than I am; care to explain? I am aware of certain geological studies about the age of the earth; I'm actually open to believing in an older earth; the book of Genesis seems to allow for that. I'm interested mainly in the biological evidence you alluded to.

Julie, if you are sincerely interested then I must most humbly apologize for my errant accusations. The evidence is so vast that I cannot begin to present it here in any way that would come close to doing it justice. That said, I will do my best if you'd really prefer to hear about it from me. Please PM me, as this would be far outside the scope of these boards. But I would strongly recommend that you start with reading Richard Dawkins. He is simply the best, imho, at presenting the evidence in a form easily "digestible" for laypersons. ANY of his books would be fantastic. But you might consider starting with The Selfish Gene. If you prefer internet to books, there are numerous fantastic resources available online. I already mentioned the TalkOrigins website. But there is also a great "evolution 101" available from berkeley.edu. (Just google it) Also check out http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/fulltext.html

 

These resources will give you the background information required for us to have an effective conversation.

[nmoira]

 

Sure, two sides can claim it. That doesn't mean both sides make a valid claim.

I wish I could rep you for this post, but alas I cannot.

[Greta]

I wish I could rep you for this post, but alas I cannot.

 

Thanks for the sentiment!

[Storm Bay]

Sure, two sides can claim it. That doesn't mean both sides make a valid claim.

 

.

 

Deleted.