Story of Noah: Who believes it to be real?

[juliamajor]

You dissenters are purposefully ignoring the truth and the point. You are trying to rationalize your attempts to discredit of God’s Word. But spiritually you are failing, and will never succeed. You are denying that you are, by your denial of the Bible stories being accurate historical facts, calling God a liar. But you are failing in that also.

I proved in previous posts which quoted the words of Jesus, Who though true Man is also True God, discredits your points. When God was trying to make a point about something without historical accurate accounts, He said so.ie.parables

Who are you to say that God didn’t do things exactly as the Bible tells us? As I have previously written, science changes constantly, but God’s Word never changes. And He has had the enirety of time to change His words to us to tell us that His original Words were lies. Yet He tells us just the opposite, and He warns us of people like you who would try to destoy the Faith of people by your own interpretations. You would fall under the term “False prophets”, which are any who don’t believe in God. And you can’t tell me that your Faith is only about salvation. If that were so, you would believe in all of it, and would not be arguing with those who believe every story in HIS WORD is true and accurate. You are denying Who Jesus is by your words and your work. You are anti Bible, which makes you anti Christ, since it is Christ’s Words and actions which make up the Bible. No where in Jesus words does it discredit the accuracy of the History of what the Word has always been. He referred to Jonah as an actual historical event. He didn’t say, “like the lie you have heard about Jonah, or the parable about Jonah.” He referred to the people of Nineveh that converted because of Jonah, who went to them because he was in the belly of a fish for three days, as being people who would be there on judgement day. Sounds like He was talking about real people and real events. You cannot explain that away. He knew we would take His words literally, and had every reason at that moment to give us what you believe is the truth, had your explanation been the truth. But your explanation is false.
Science has become your God, and Modernism your religion. You are not following Christ because you are trying to discredit Him…as He was with God at the time of Creation…Creation was made through the Word. Jesus is the Word.

Regardless of what you choose to believe, it does not take away Who and what God did with His own creation. And people in the time of Christ were just as capable as the people of today of accepting anything Jesus said. He didn’t have to hide the Truth from them…as a matter of fact, in my last post I cited scripture versus which proves that He didn’t shirk from being painfully honest with them, which caused many of His beloved disciples to stop following Him.
He is God, He is perfect. He can neither decieve nor be decieved. Which means that He could not have decieved the people whom He inspired in writing the Bible. If the story were false, or anything about it false, it would have been a deception…which He is incapable of. And there were no reasons for it.
Another problem with evolution is you believe that all past generations were stupid compared to this generation. It is this generation that is stupid, for it has produced people like you who doubt that the Word of God is truth.

Once more, I give my leave of this thread. I will not allow you to steal my peace again.

Dissenter? From what? If God didn’t want us to discuss His words so that it is ever alive-He wouldn’t have given us a brain to reason with.If there were no arguments and no discussion about scripture it would be dead- do you want it to die?Jewish scholars have argued and discussed scripture for thousands of years and they believe that because the Torah is alive that every generation finds something new.something that is relevant to each generation. The Torah the Neviim and the Kethuvim- are renewed and 'rediscovered ’ with every new human brain which wishes to study it.Discredit God’s Word? I teach it and have taught it for many years now- I read it, I study it and I hope I live it.As far as denying historicity. NOT EVERY BOOK OF THE BIBLE IS A HISTORY NOR WAS IT MEANT TO BE TAKEN AS SUCH!Have you read the Sumerian Creation stories, or the Epic of Gilgamish , or the Atraharis or any of the Creation or Flood stories? If you did you would see many familiar archetypes, images similar to to the Biblical accounts but which preceded the biblical accounts by thousands of years. Does that diminish God’s word? Of course not. because the differences in the tales are the important part- God’s love of .His creatures and His creation are unique in the ancient world . and God didn’t ‘write’ the Bible -man did- INSPIRED by the HS. Do you think that God so despises His creation that He would use His authors like robots, computers or was it by some heaven version of 'automatic writing"? No . God respects our minds, our spirits our thought processes and yes, even our flaws(re:Jacob, Peter and whole flock)to bring about His will.Not every CF who commented on Scripture agreed with each other- many were at odds . Because there was disagreements does that negate our further investigation of Scripture? should we stop studying it- should biblical studies be banned- should schools of biblical theology be frozen? Should we burn “Dei Verbum” or rip Divino Spiritu Afflante into little pieces because it doesn’t coincide with your view of Scripture?I hate to tellyou Jesus wa and is True God and true Man but on this earth he dealt with a human brain and was limited in his human knowledge- look at theology if you don’t believe me. Your view is so narrow- either it’s history or it’s parable- sorry lady . There is more to language and writing then just history or parable and Jesus used them all because he was no dummy. Just because something is or isn’t historical doesn’t make it more true or less true .You narrow God;s greatness when you narrow His word.The problem is you equate history with truth& truth with history. Some things are so lost in the mids of time that there is no possibility of it being historical. Creation and flood were pre history-nobody was there to take notes. Ah, you say but God was there- of course but to think that God’s main concern in inspiring Scripture is to promote an historical view of Creation? Folly. How incredibly arrogant of you to assume that you have the inside track with God , that you are one of the faithful remnant!The Church in it’s wonderful Wisdom doesn’t assume to tells us line by line what scripture means and how it should be interpreted.But apparently you have a higher authority.Church does the smart thing and concerns itself with salvation and how to get it and doesn’t worry about how many animals could fit on an ark! As far as being a False Prophet- phew- A prophet is anyone who speaks FOR God. I don’t even think anything close to that. I speak for myself and what I have learned. If You want to want someone one thinks they speak for God - You better look in the mirror. Anti Christ Anti Bible- i hand out Bibles- i don’t try to narrow God down to my puny train of thought or my prejudices or my dislikes. Jonah’s story is a perfect example - I suggest you reread it and study what it really says instead of worrying about historicity (hate to tell you but there are historic mistakes from the very beginning concerning time and place) You take salvation history as if it were history history- dealing with politics and the price of goats and who invented the cotton gin! Truth is Eternal but the way we pass on the truth can be varied- it can be told in stories and poems didactic novels and any way God chooses- not in ways we are comfortable with. If Scripture makes you feel all warm and fuzzy and comfortable about yourself then you are not reading it right. It should make you think, consider and do. It should change your life or else alter your ways in some manner It should be thought , consider ,studied and discussed. It should’n’t lie gathering dust because your to afraid or too set in your ways to gain more out of it or you are to settled in your own view of the truth. Again Study 'Jonah" it is a many layered story that has become a kiddie tale. peace

 

[Philipp]

You dissenters are purposefully ignoring the truth and the point. You are trying to rationalize your attempts to discredit of God’s Word. But spiritually you are failing, and will never succeed. You are denying that you are, by your denial of the Bible stories being accurate historical facts, calling God a liar. But you are failing in that also.

I proved in previous posts which quoted the words of Jesus, Who though true Man is also True God, discredits your points. When God was trying to make a point about something without historical accurate accounts, He said so.ie.parables

Who are you to say that God didn’t do things exactly as the Bible tells us? As I have previously written, science changes constantly, but God’s Word never changes. And He has had the enirety of time to change His words to us to tell us that His original Words were lies. Yet He tells us just the opposite, and He warns us of people like you who would try to destoy the Faith of people by your own interpretations. You would fall under the term “False prophets”, which are any who don’t believe in God. And you can’t tell me that your Faith is only about salvation. If that were so, you would believe in all of it, and would not be arguing with those who believe every story in HIS WORD is true and accurate. You are denying Who Jesus is by your words and your work. You are anti Bible, which makes you anti Christ, since it is Christ’s Words and actions which make up the Bible. No where in Jesus words does it discredit the accuracy of the History of what the Word has always been. He referred to Jonah as an actual historical event. He didn’t say, “like the lie you have heard about Jonah, or the parable about Jonah.” He referred to the people of Nineveh that converted because of Jonah, who went to them because he was in the belly of a fish for three days, as being people who would be there on judgement day. Sounds like He was talking about real people and real events. You cannot explain that away. He knew we would take His words literally, and had every reason at that moment to give us what you believe is the truth, had your explanation been the truth. But your explanation is false.
Science has become your God, and Modernism your religion. You are not following Christ because you are trying to discredit Him…as He was with God at the time of Creation…Creation was made through the Word. Jesus is the Word.

Regardless of what you choose to believe, it does not take away Who and what God did with His own creation. And people in the time of Christ were just as capable as the people of today of accepting anything Jesus said. He didn’t have to hide the Truth from them…as a matter of fact, in my last post I cited scripture versus which proves that He didn’t shirk from being painfully honest with them, which caused many of His beloved disciples to stop following Him.
He is God, He is perfect. He can neither decieve nor be decieved. Which means that He could not have decieved the people whom He inspired in writing the Bible. If the story were false, or anything about it false, it would have been a deception…which He is incapable of. And there were no reasons for it.
Another problem with evolution is you believe that all past generations were stupid compared to this generation. It is this generation that is stupid, for it has produced people like you who doubt that the Word of God is truth.

Once more, I give my leave of this thread. I will not allow you to steal my peace again.

Once more, I give my leave of this thread. I will not allow you to steal my peace again.

Thanks for returning for a few more great quotes from scripture and your support of scripture as salvation history. As Catholic apologetics has pointed out using the studies that support Moses as the writer of Genesis 1-11 modern scientific discoveries continue to show that the inspired words given to Moses sizzles while Darwin fizzles. Deo gratias!!!

 

[Philipp]

Once more, I give my leave of this thread. I will not allow you to steal my peace again.

Thanks for returning for a few more great quotes from scripture and your support of scripture as salvation history. As Catholic apologetics has pointed out using the studies that support Moses as the writer of Genesis 1-11 modern scientific discoveries continue to show that the inspired words given to Moses sizzles while Darwin fizzles. Deo gratias!!!

Hi guys:

Don’t look now but your arches are falling!

answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/08/16/news-to-note-08162008#th
ree

Have you guys had enough or do want some more?

Moses sizzles while Darwin fizzles

 

[Orogeny]

Have you guys had enough or do want some more?

Moses sizzles while Darwin fizzles

More please. The more you post, the worse your position is.

Peace

Tim

 

[Philipp]

More please. The more you post, the worse your position is.

Peace

Tim

Thank you Oh Mighty Tower of Darwinian Knowledge.

Of course the mega years of the many and varying evolution hypotheses are crashing along with the “stone arches in an interesting commentary and story. However Orogeny can’t seem to handle it so at his suggestion ---- his torpedoes, full speed ahead. Thus I’ve copied the article for those who might be intimidated by his response and so won’t examine the evidence OR haven’t the time to search the AIG news items and editorials.

1. MSNBC/AP: “Stone Arch Collapses in Southern Utah Park”

If an arch collapses in a desert and no one is around to hear it, does it still shout “millions of years”?
Utah’s famous Arches National Park is one arch short this week, after the collapse of one of its largest and most photographed arches—Wall Arch.

No one was around when the arch collapsed sometime early last week, the forces of gravity and erosion finally bringing down the natural spectacle. “They all let go after a while,” commented Paul Henderson, the Arches National chief of interpretation.

And it’s exactly the interpretation of Henderson and others that we disagree with! The popular view of the park’s 2,000 or so arches is that they were formed through millions of years of slow erosion carving out each arch. (For example, the park’s website reads, “Throughout the park, rock layers reveal millions of years of deposition, erosion and other geologic events.”)

As one News to Note reader pointed out, if these arches take millions of years to form, but collapse at a rate of several in a century, there’s no way there would be any remaining for us to see! (According to the Wikipedia article on Arches National Park, 43 arches have collapsed since 1970; however, no source is cited for the information and we could not verify the number—or any other number—elsewhere. The AP article names the (partial) 1991collapse of Landscape Arch as the most recent.)

This simple math, which corresponds with other calculations, indicates that—even starting with uniformitarian assumptions—the facts just don’t support millions of years of earth history.

Folks, just imagine that you are in the “Temple of Darwin” and its “arches and columns” are starting to fall all about you and you stand there hearing Orogeny saying, “Almighty Darwin the omnipotent one, this is not happening.

I’ve just reproduced AIG’s commenary for the reading pleasure of at least some of the folks who read this thread.

Now here is the next news item. 4. ScienceNOW: “Stem Cell Lines Mark Birth of New Field”

The case for embryonic stem cell research has weakened even further after the successful creation of pluripotent stem cells out of patient’s existing cells.

Scientists at Harvard and Columbia announced the news, which was quickly followed up by another report from Harvard—the generation of disease-specific stem cell lines for ten diseases.
The stem cells used to generate these lines were “induced pluripotent” stem cells—iPS—created by reprogramming adult cells. Among the diseases covered are two types of muscular dystrophy, Parkinson’s disease, Type 1 diabetes, and Down syndrome.

“[This] opens the door to a new way of studying degenerative diseases,” explained Douglas Melton, a diabetes researcher at Harvard. Using induced pluripotent stem cells avoids many of the ethical problems with stem cell research (specifically embryonic stem cell research).

As research in this field continues, scientists are discovering increasing potential in creating and manipulating stem cells without crossing ethical boundaries. By supporting morally sound stem cell research, we can look forward to treatments that don’t predicate the healing of a life on the taking of a life.

Philipp comment: AIG is a fundamentalist museum group in Northern KY, with its support of literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 which Orogeny and others trash. But they also support ONLY "morally sound stem cell research and believe that life begins at conceptioin. That happens to be my beliefs also having been activie in the pro-life movement since 1970; I wonder if Orogeny as a geologist believes in the fundamental right to life of an unborn child? After all, whether God created life through evolution over billions of years or as I believe in a six literal 24 hour days maybe we can at least agree on life begins at conception and needs to be protected. Can we agree life begins at conception and needs to be protected from conception on?

How do others on this thread feel about the need to protect unborn humans from conception on? . It does deal with origins and the concept that “Ony life can beget Life”

 

[juliamajor]

Thank you Oh Mighty Tower of Darwinian Knowledge.

Of course the mega years of the many and varying evolution hypotheses are crashing along with the “stone arches in an interesting commentary and story. However Orogeny can’t seem to handle it so at his suggestion ---- his torpedoes, full speed ahead. Thus I’ve copied the article for those who might be intimidated by his response and so won’t examine the evidence OR haven’t the time to search the AIG news items and editorials.

1. MSNBC/AP: “Stone Arch Collapses in Southern Utah Park”

If an arch collapses in a desert and no one is around to hear it, does it still shout “millions of years”?
Utah’s famous Arches National Park is one arch short this week, after the collapse of one of its largest and most photographed arches—Wall Arch.

No one was around when the arch collapsed sometime early last week, the forces of gravity and erosion finally bringing down the natural spectacle. “They all let go after a while,” commented Paul Henderson, the Arches National chief of interpretation.

And it’s exactly the interpretation of Henderson and others that we disagree with! The popular view of the park’s 2,000 or so arches is that they were formed through millions of years of slow erosion carving out each arch. (For example, the park’s website reads, “Throughout the park, rock layers reveal millions of years of deposition, erosion and other geologic events.”)

As one News to Note reader pointed out, if these arches take millions of years to form, but collapse at a rate of several in a century, there’s no way there would be any remaining for us to see! (According to the Wikipedia article on Arches National Park, 43 arches have collapsed since 1970; however, no source is cited for the information and we could not verify the number—or any other number—elsewhere. The AP article names the (partial) 1991collapse of Landscape Arch as the most recent.)

This simple math, which corresponds with other calculations, indicates that—even starting with uniformitarian assumptions—the facts just don’t support millions of years of earth history.

Folks, just imagine that you are in the “Temple of Darwin” and its “arches and columns” are starting to fall all about you and you stand there hearing Orogeny saying, “Almighty Darwin the omnipotent one, this is not happening.

I’ve just reproduced AIG’s commenary for the reading pleasure of at least some of the folks who read this thread.

Now here is the next news item. 4. ScienceNOW: “Stem Cell Lines Mark Birth of New Field”

The case for embryonic stem cell research has weakened even further after the successful creation of pluripotent stem cells out of patient’s existing cells.

Scientists at Harvard and Columbia announced the news, which was quickly followed up by another report from Harvard—the generation of disease-specific stem cell lines for ten diseases.
The stem cells used to generate these lines were “induced pluripotent” stem cells—iPS—created by reprogramming adult cells. Among the diseases covered are two types of muscular dystrophy, Parkinson’s disease, Type 1 diabetes, and Down syndrome.

“[This] opens the door to a new way of studying degenerative diseases,” explained Douglas Melton, a diabetes researcher at Harvard. Using induced pluripotent stem cells avoids many of the ethical problems with stem cell research (specifically embryonic stem cell research).

As research in this field continues, scientists are discovering increasing potential in creating and manipulating stem cells without crossing ethical boundaries. By supporting morally sound stem cell research, we can look forward to treatments that don’t predicate the healing of a life on the taking of a life.

Philipp comment: AIG is a fundamentalist museum group in Northern KY, with its support of literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 which Orogeny and others trash. But they also support ONLY "morally sound stem cell research and believe that life begins at conceptioin. That happens to be my beliefs also having been activie in the pro-life movement since 1970; I wonder if Orogeny as a geologist believes in the fundamental right to life of an unborn child? After all, whether God created life through evolution over billions of years or as I believe in a six literal 24 hour days maybe we can at least agree on life begins at conception and needs to be protected. Can we agree life begins at conception and needs to be protected from conception on?

How do others on this thread feel about the need to protect unborn humans from conception on? . It does deal with origins and the concept that “Ony life can beget Life”

Oh goody-info from fundamentalist websites! Yeah I’ll believe everything they say- not! anti- scholarship,anti science , anti intelligence-great all hallmarks of Fundie websites.Just what we need!Aren’t we kinda losing scripture here! ?

 

[colliric]

It is a spiritual account of a very real event. But we read too much into it and our exergesis is quite often clouded by our modern biases.

“The World” means the Ancient Middle East, and not what we understand it to be today. The same with the animals… it was all the animals that they knew of… and not all the animals that we know today.

I Believe It is a Spiritual Account of the Black Sea Flood which occured at the end of the last european ice age about 5,000 years BC (This is scientifically evidenced to many people), so it is NOT an entirly scientific account and NOT entirly a spiritualistic account either. It is somewhere in between.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory

 

[Orogeny]

Thank you Oh Mighty Tower of Darwinian Knowledge.

Good. Keep going. You are doing great!

You do know, though, that we are speaking of geology, not evolution, right?

1. MSNBC/AP: “Stone Arch Collapses in Southern Utah Park” As one News to Note reader pointed out, if these arches take millions of years to form, but collapse at a rate of several in a century, there’s no way there would be any remaining for us to see! (According to the Wikipedia article on Arches National Park, 43 arches have collapsed since 1970; however, no source is cited for the information and we could not verify the number—or any other number—elsewhere. The AP article names the (partial) 1991collapse of Landscape Arch as the most recent.)

How many arches have ever been formed? Has arch formation ended? Does it take millions of years to create an arch? Do you have a clue?

This simple math, which corresponds with other calculations, indicates that—even starting with uniformitarian assumptions—the facts just don’t support millions of years of earth history.

Then the “simple math” is correct only in that it will fool simple people. Looks like it has succeeded.

Folks, just imagine that you are in the “Temple of Darwin” and its “arches and columns” are starting to fall all about you and you stand there hearing Orogeny saying, “Almighty Darwin the omnipotent one, this is not happening.

Nice!

Philipp comment: AIG is a fundamentalist museum group in Northern KY, with its support of literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 which Orogeny and others trash.

They are also anti-Catholic and anti-science, but hey, if they support your literalist position, don’t worry about the details.

But they also support ONLY "morally sound stem cell research and believe that life begins at conceptioin. That happens to be my beliefs also having been activie in the pro-life movement since 1970; I wonder if Orogeny as a geologist believes in the fundamental right to life of an unborn child?

What does my geology education have to do with that issue? Can’t you make your case scientifically…oh yeah, you can’t. Never mind. I understand why you felt like you needed to bring this up.

I support all life from the moment of conception. Embryonic stem cell research is murder. But as usual, someone who is more Catholic than I assumes that because I, like the Church, don’t deny that there are truths to be found by science, I must not really be a believer. Sorry to dissapoint Phillipp.

By the way, have you heard back from the ASA yet?

Peace

Tim

 

[reggieM]

I support all life from the moment of conception. Embryonic stem cell research is murder.

That is very good to hear. I am a Catholic and I believe those teachings also. But I also believe that Darwinism threatens our understanding of the sacredness of human life.

But as usual, someone who is more Catholic than I assumes that because I, like the Church, don’t deny that there are truths to be found by science, I must not really be a believer.

I would never pretend or claim to be more Catholic than you, unless I knew it was true (e.g. you were in schism or in heresy). But I think I have also assumed that you do not hold to the teaching of the Church because your posts make it seem like you’re not a believer. You have a very emotional bond with Darwinian theory and you defend it with what seems like a personal committment. By comparison, your Catholicism seems cold and detached – like it’s something you have to believe but you really don’t want to.

I apologize if this characterization seems unjust. I’m just commenting on the apologetical value of your posts and not on you personally.

But as far as apologetics goes – I think it’s important to try to win people over to your view. If someone is wrong about something, it’s best to be patient and try to correct the person without resorting to sarcasm and ridicule.

I usually don’t see evolutionists trying to win me over to their belief. It’s almost always a matter of ridicule and mockery – with the desired goal of shutting down the discussion.

What I’ve seen in these discussions alone gives me reason to believe that Darwinian theory is on shaky ground.

A good example is where I’ve argued with passionate Darwin-defenders to get them to admit that there is *any *weakness in Darwinism at all. When it cannot be conceded that there are any weak points in the theory – then this proves to me that the apologists for the theory are too defensive and are not confident.

 

[Orogeny]

That is very good to hear. I am a Catholic and I believe those teachings also. But I also believe that Darwinism threatens our understanding of the sacredness of human life.

I would disagree. Nothing natural about selection by abortion!

I would never pretend or claim to be more Catholic than you, unless I knew it was true (e.g. you were in schism or in heresy). But I think I have also assumed that you do not hold to the teaching of the Church because your posts make it seem like you’re not a believer. You have a very emotional bond with Darwinian theory and you defend it with what seems like a personal committment. By comparison, your Catholicism seems cold and detached – like it’s something you have to believe but you really don’t want to.

Well, I’m sorry that is the impression that is obtained by my posts. I am much more passionate about my faith than I am about science.

However, it does bother me when people, for what ever reason, misrepresent science as a way to support their faith-based positions. Science isn’t easy. That’s why relatively few people study it at the college level. Yet there is thread after thread on this forum by people who either just blow off the science or, worse, make stuff up and try to convince others that their “science” is right and real scientists are (choose one) agents for athiesm, liars about their faith, cafeteria Catholics. Its just not right.

Science is not the enemy of faith.

I apologize if this characterization seems unjust. I’m just commenting on the apologetical value of your posts and not on you personally.

It is unjust, but I don’t mind you posting this. Posting to a forum is very limiting in the sense that you can only read what I post. You cannot get the true meaning because you can’t hear it as I would say it. That is a big limitation.

But as far as apologetics goes – I think it’s important to try to win people over to your view. If someone is wrong about something, it’s best to be patient and try to correct the person without resorting to sarcasm and ridicule.

Perhaps it is because I have been on these threads for too long, but I don’t think that most of the people I disagree with are here to be won over. I, along with numerous other posters, have given answers to questions over and over again. Yet I continue to see the same arguments made against evolution, many times by people who have been corrected. My favorite is “Its only a theory”. How many times does someone need to be corrected about that?

I usually don’t see evolutionists trying to win me over to their belief. It’s almost always a matter of ridicule and mockery – with the desired goal of shutting down the discussion.

That does go both ways, you know.

What I’ve seen in these discussions alone gives me reason to believe that Darwinian theory is on shaky ground.

That may be, but I think that you came to these discussions not accepting evolution to begin with. As I have noted on multiple occassions, that is fine. I don’t really care if you or anyone else accepts the science. Anyone who posts that they are YECs based on their faith will never get an argument from me. If, however, they start making stuff up to support their position or misrepresenting science, I will respond.

A good example is where I’ve argued with passionate Darwin-defenders to get them to admit that there is *any *weakness in Darwinism at all. When it cannot be conceded that there are any weak points in the theory – then this proves to me that the apologists for the theory are too defensive and are not confident.

Well, I have followed most threads on this topic (I’m sure you are shocked!) and I don’t recall that you have pointed out any weaknesses in the theory. There are plenty of things that have not yet been explained, but that isn’t a weakness, that is a scientific theory.

Peace

Tim

 

[reggieM]

Thanks for your comments, Tim. I appreciate your point of view, even where I disagree (and I think you know where the disagreements are so I won’t repeat them).

But just a few comments:

I don’t recall that you have pointed out any weaknesses in the theory.

Ok, you’re one of those who does not believe that Darwinian theory has any weaknesses at all. In other words, none of the criticisms against Darwinian theory (in any of its many forms) are correct. In pursuing this topic with you, I would make it my sole purpose in trying to persuade you that evolutionary theory has, at least, some weaknesses. Darwin admitted that there were weaknesses.

Yet I continue to see the same arguments made against evolution, many times by people who have been corrected. My favorite is “Its only a theory”. How many times does someone need to be corrected about that?

Well, it’s one thing to correct someone and another to be persuasive and convincing. We have to correct people about the nature of the Papacy or of the meaning of the Immaculate Conception. We don’t just say “you’re wrong”. We try to win people over. When you realize that a person is opposed to the Papacy because of their belief in Sola Scriptura or because of a historical error that they hold – we then try to correct those issues and be persuasive there. There’s no sense in ridiculing people who we’re trying to convert.

[Ridicule & sarcasm] does go both ways, you know.

Yes, it doesn’t unfortunately. But I’d be concerned about wanting to put my view on the same level as my opponents. Doing that legitimizes the opponent. If you’re right, and your view is on solid ground – you should be confident and peaceful. Just patiently offer your view and make it attractive to those who read it.

When I see you getting defensive and using personal attacks (as just about every Darwinian defender here in CAF does), I conclude that they don’t have confidence in their position and are just trying to knock people down.

It’s not sufficient to say “they do it also”. Is it unfair that your opponents can use ridicule and you can’t? Well, not really – because you (supposedly) have the truth about the matter and you can teach the people who are ignorant.

Again, I don’t know how Darwinian theory can be made attractive to people without an effort to win them over to something that is reasonable and humane.

I understand some people will say “It’s the truth – and that’s all that is needed”. But I don’t think that the people who oppose Darwinian theory see it as “the truth” and that’s the problem.

 

[reggieM]

Yet there is thread after thread on this forum by people who either just blow off the science or, worse, make stuff up and try to convince others that their “science” is right and real scientists are (choose one) agents for athiesm, liars about their faith, cafeteria Catholics. Its just not right.

Ok, but it’s also not right to deny that there are many scientists who are, indeed, agents for atheism. Some surveys show that the scientific community is 70% atheist.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen you comment about that - on why atheists are so dominant and numerous in science to a factor of 50 to 1 versus the general public.

Again, to dismiss the meaning of that, or to dismiss how that fact would strike a Catholic believer seems to be missing a major point in my view. In other words, since so many scientists are atheists, and Darwinian defenders are among some of the most strident atheistic voices in our society – why would you be surprised and frustrated that many people make the connection between atheism and science?

You might not like that conclusion and argue that it’s wrong – but I think you should understand that believers (especially orthodox Catholic believers like yourself) are among a tiny minority of Darwinians.

 

[Orogeny]

Ok, you’re one of those who does not believe that Darwinian theory has any weaknesses at all. In other words, none of the criticisms against Darwinian theory (in any of its many forms) are correct. In pursuing this topic with you, I would make it my sole purpose in trying to persuade you that evolutionary theory has, at least, some weaknesses. Darwin admitted that there were weaknesses.

Perhaps we would be in agreement if I knew what you consider a weakness. Lack of an explanation for everything is not a weakness to me. If that isn’t what you are considering a weakness, then please explain what is.

By the way, I am a geologist, not a biologist. I don’t have a particularly deep understanding of biology, but so far, I haven’t seen anything that would make me think that those who do understand biology are wrong.

There’s no sense in ridiculing people who we’re trying to convert.

I’m not trying to convert anyone to accept science. I am just responding to what I see are erroneous claims about our faith or about science. As I said, I don’t think that many (if any) people on these threads are interested in being converted.

Yes, it doesn’t unfortunately. But I’d be concerned about wanting to put my view on the same level as my opponents. Doing that legitimizes the opponent. If you’re right, and your view is on solid ground – you should be confident and peaceful. Just patiently offer your view and make it attractive to those who read it.

Point made.

When I see you getting defensive and using personal attacks (as just about every Darwinian defender here in CAF does), I conclude that they don’t have confidence in their position and are just trying to knock people down.

You may conclude that, but you would be wrong, at least in my case. Do you not see that just about every evolution denier here does the same thing? Doesn’t that say a lot about the discussion of this topic in general rather than about one side or the other?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Ok, but it’s also not right to deny that there are many scientists who are, indeed, agents for atheism. Some surveys show that the scientific community is 70% atheist.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen you comment about that - on why atheists are so dominant and numerous in science to a factor of 50 to 1 versus the general public.

I don’t know why that is. I do suspect that at least some of them began as believers who were taught YEC positions but who, once exposed to the evidence, realized that they were wrong. If they were taught that only athiests could accept that evolution is true, the earth is old and the universe is older, they chose reason.

Luckily, I wasn’t taught to be a literalist.

Again, to dismiss the meaning of that, or to dismiss how that fact would strike a Catholic believer seems to be missing a major point in my view. In other words, since so many scientists are atheists, and Darwinian defenders are among some of the most strident atheistic voices in our society – why would you be surprised and frustrated that many people make the connection between atheism and science?

Because that connection isn’t required. Sure many scientists are athiests and, as you noted, vocal opponents of religion. That says nothing about science and what is frustrating to me as well as others on these threads is that no matter how often we point that out, it is ignored. Instead of relishing the idea that there are indeed christian scientists out there, those scientists are constantly having their faith questioned. I’ll tell you, I probably am questioned about my faith on this forum roughly once a month or so. It doesn’t matter how often I state that I am Catholic. To some posters, I can’t be both a scientist and a Catholic because of THEIR notions of what catholicism and science are.

Correlation does not imply causation. Just because most scientists are not believers does not mean that science is what caused their position.

You might not like that conclusion and argue that it’s wrong – but I think you should understand that believers (especially orthodox Catholic believers like yourself) are among a tiny minority of Darwinians.

We may be a minority, but to some posters here we don’t exist, regardless of what we claim.

Peace

Tim

 

[reggieM]

Do you not see that just about every evolution denier here does the same thing?

Yes, but supposedly they are the ignorant kooks who don’t know anything and can’t be expected to be rational. To see the supposed knowledgeable and objective scientists here – arguing about matters in their own field of expertise, in ways that are indistinguishable from the “creationist nutcases” says a lot to me about the evolutionists. Why are they so crazy? They hold a majority opinion in science, supposedly 99% of scientists agree with them? So why are they so defensive and filled with emotion and sarcasm? It’s like they’re afraid of something. If they supposedly know the truth, they should be calm. I can understand the “kooks” acting emotional and irrational, but not the supposed academics and PhDs and honored-credentialed scientists who come here to share wisdom, etc.

Doesn’t that say a lot about the discussion of this topic in general rather than about one side or the other?

Yes, it might, but I don’t know where you’re going with this. I think since the topic touches so closely on the nature of our Faith and of God – it provokes these reactions. It’s a challenge to atheists (and their cherished beliefs) as well as to Catholics.

But this just refutes the claims from Darwinists that evolution is “just science”. If that was the case, we wouldn’t see this kind of passion from all sides.

 

[Orogeny]

Yes, but supposedly they are the ignorant kooks who don’t know anything and can’t be expected to be rational.

Supposedly?

To see the supposed knowledgeable and objective scientists here – arguing about matters in their own field of expertise, in ways that are indistinguishable from the “creationist nutcases” says a lot to me about the evolutionists. Why are they so crazy? They hold a majority opinion in science, supposedly 99% of scientists agree with them? So why are they so defensive and filled with emotion and sarcasm? It’s like they’re afraid of something. If they supposedly know the truth, they should be calm. I can understand the “kooks” acting emotional and irrational, but not the supposed academics and PhDs and honored-credentialed scientists who come here to share wisdom, etc.

I’m sorry, but I really disagree with you on this. First off, this is not a place to teach science. Unfortunately, many of the arguments against science are based on ignorance of that science. By ignorance I am not calling anyone ignorant. I specifically mean that most if not all of the time, that person has no background in science. And yes, that is important. One cannot learn science by reading some YEC web page. Or, for that matter, a non-YEC web page.

After trying to explain how the claims against science are wrong over and over, it is hard not to talk down to those who don’t even understand the reasons that their argument is wrong.

A perfect case in point was a discussion that I have been involved with in a couple threads over the last year or so regarding the claims that a certain individual has done some laboratory testing that has invalidated a basic principle of geology. That person is not only wrong, I very, very strongly suspect that he knows that he is wrong. But being right isn’t his goal. His stated motivation was what he preceived as contradictions between geology and scripture and to overturn one of the biggest obstacles to a literal global flood. He has sold his story to people who don’t understand the science by using big, scientific words and giving YECs hope that their literalism is correct.

I have seen his work brought up over and over as valid science by those who probably had never even heard about sedimentology prior to reading about his earth-shattering work. That is not their fault. They have been deceived by someone because they don’t have a science background and the story gives them hope that they actually, for once, have science on their side. Yet I have been told over and over that I am wrong and they are right because their story fits their literalist position. Forget that I actually studied sedimentology. My efforts and knowledge are inconsequential at best.

After a while, the effort to explain the science becomes an obvious waste of time because people don’t want to hear the truth.

Yes, it might, but I don’t know where you’re going with this. I think since the topic touches so closely on the nature of our Faith and of God – it provokes these reactions. It’s a challenge to atheists (and their cherished beliefs) as well as to Catholics.

But this just refutes the claims from Darwinists that evolution is “just science”. If that was the case, we wouldn’t see this kind of passion from all sides.

Nope, it doesn’t. It means that the personal beliefs of people on both sides of the argument are important to them. The science is what it is and doesn’t take sides.

Peace

Tim

 

[colliric]

You might not like that conclusion and argue that it’s wrong – but I think you should understand that believers (especially orthodox Catholic believers like yourself) are among a tiny minority of Darwinians.

I find it ironic that Darwin was no athiest himself. He was predominantly Agnostic(sometimes during his life, he was even a practising Anglican) and actually believed in a form of Theistic Evolution and not fully in the theory that is taught in his name today.

In his “Origin of the Species” he devotes entire chapters to explaining his Theistic Evolutionary theory in relation to the Religious Theology of his time.

To be correctly identified as “Darwinist” one must be either Agnostic or a Believer!

P.S
To point this out to “Darwinists” during arguements will often be met with deathly silence and odd looks. It’s probally the biggest “Secret Weapon” you can possibly use…

 

[reggieM]

Yet I have been told over and over that I am wrong and they are right because their story fits their literalist position. Forget that I actually studied sedimentology. My efforts and knowledge are inconsequential at best.

If your efforts are treated as inconsequential, then that is not good. But I will say that an appeal to authority (in this case, your own authority as an academic) is difficult on a web-forum unless you can really prove you are a world-class figure of some kind. That might be unfair, but people are accustomed to hearing from self-proclaimed authorities on the web. Additionally, there are some scientists who disagree with the majority view and sometimes the minority view is found to be correct.

After a while, the effort to explain the science becomes an obvious waste of time because people don’t want to hear the truth.

Well, if you reach that point I would like to ask that you just refrain from the discussion. Because otherwise you’re not just wasting time, but you’ll be trying to knock someone down on a personal level - since you’ll believe that the person doesn’t want to hear the truth. I’ve been in that situation myself, and I try to just avoid people like that.

Nope, it doesn’t. It means that the personal beliefs of people on both sides of the argument are important to them. The science is what it is and doesn’t take sides.

I can see that. But it makes me wonder if the science is very well established if it comes weighted with so much personal emotion. I also think that scientists’ beliefs bias the presentation of the facts.

 

[reggieM]

I don’t know why [70% of scientists are atheist]. I do suspect that at least some of them began as believers who were taught YEC positions but who, once exposed to the evidence, realized that they were wrong. If they were taught that only athiests could accept that evolution is true, the earth is old and the universe is older, they chose reason.

Ok, with all due respect this leads me to some ideas on why your Catholicism is questioned so often. You are in a tiny minority – an orthodox Catholic believer in a field dominated by atheists. But I’ve asked you why so many scientists are atheist and you don’t know, or you blame the YEC position for causing them to be atheist. The Catholic Church supported YEC for centuries (not taught formally but supported). This would mean that when the Church opened to evolution, all those Catholics would become atheist. But that didn’t happen.

Because that connection isn’t required. Sure many scientists are athiests and, as you noted, vocal opponents of religion. That says nothing about science and what is frustrating to me as well as others on these threads is that no matter how often we point that out, it is ignored.

What does it say something about, if not science? How is it that a ridiculous number of atheists collect in the field of science, but that fact alone doesn’t say anything about the science (or philosophy of science) that they’re attracted to?

This does not line up with reality. Again, if you want to convince ordinary people I think you should reflect on this point. People see that a vast majority of scientists are atheist. They talk to a Catholic scientist (yourself) about this and you say that the atheism has nothing to do with the field of science. But you also don’t have much of an idea or opinion on why a disproportiate number of scientists are atheistic.

Instead of relishing the idea that there are indeed christian scientists out there, those scientists are constantly having their faith questioned.

Yes, but why relish a tiny number of Christian scientists - many who actually sound just like the atheists (never talking about God’s role, taking liberal-modernist views of the Bible and Catholic doctrine, and ridiculing the belief of the Church)?

An orthdox Catholic, as I see it, should be outraged that science is dominated by unbelief and hatred of God. But all the Catholic-Darwinists I’ve seen on CAF are not outraged. They accept it as “normal” that there are so many atheistic scientists – and some of those Catholics never have even mild criticism of the atheistic culture of science.

I’ll tell you, I probably am questioned about my faith on this forum roughly once a month or so. It doesn’t matter how often I state that I am Catholic.

I don’t think this is a good thing, but I"m also not suprised for reasons I gave. You don’t distinguish your position from atheistic-science very clearly. Obviously, a believer in God will have to view evolution differently than an atheist.

To some posters, I can’t be both a scientist and a Catholic because of THEIR notions of what catholicism and science are.

I would substitute “doctrinaire-evolutionist” for “scientist”. Or perhaps “believer in scientism” for “scientist”. Those are incompatible with Catholicism.

Correlation does not imply causation. Just because most scientists are not believers does not mean that science is what caused their position.

True, but you’ve really offered no explaination for this incredible phenomenon. How is it possible that you don’t think about this all the time. Your field is dominated by people who hate God and who spread atheistic teachings in order to destroy the faith of millions. But you take a defenisive posture and state that science is innocent. That might be fine but what about the serious problem that is avoided here? Why do atheists flock to Darwinism? Why are they fed in a scientific culture that is friendly to them and is dominated by them? What effect to they have on the scientific culture – the attitudes of science and education?

We may be a minority, but to some posters here we don’t exist, regardless of what we claim.

Well, I’m glad you’re there and you deserve credit and support for being a faithful Catholic in a difficult environment. But I would wish that your faith was better distinguished from atheistic-Darwinism in a way that would be easier to recognize.

In other words, instead of a carte blanche defense of Darwinism all the time – admit upfront that there are serious problems (as Cardinal Shoenborn did). Some theories of evolution are incompatible with Catholicism.

 

[Orogeny]

If your efforts are treated as inconsequential, then that is not good. But I will say that an appeal to authority (in this case, your own authority as an academic) is difficult on a web-forum unless you can really prove you are a world-class figure of some kind.

I am not an academic nor am I an expert. I would suggest, however, that very few if any of the posters on this forum who argue that a basic geological principle has been overturned have ever had as much as a freshman geology class. The things being claimed are such nonsense that even a basic understanding of geolgy would be sufficient to see the deception.

That might be unfair, but people are accustomed to hearing from self-proclaimed authorities on the web.

Well, you made my point even though I don’t think you meant to. People hear from self-proclaimed authorities all the time. The specific case I am referring to is a perfect example, yet almost every creationist/YEC on this forum accepts his conclusions.

Additionally, there are some scientists who disagree with the majority view and sometimes the minority view is found to be correct.

I know of no geologists that would agree that the law of superpostion has been invalidated. Period. I do think, though, that you have shown that even if I were a world-class figure of some kind, you wouldn’t accept what I post. You will always fall back to the argument that some scientists disagree.

Well, if you reach that point I would like to ask that you just refrain from the discussion. Because otherwise you’re not just wasting time, but you’ll be trying to knock someone down on a personal level - since you’ll believe that the person doesn’t want to hear the truth. I’ve been in that situation myself, and I try to just avoid people like that.

Sorry, but I won’t refrain from the discussion.

I can see that. But it makes me wonder if the science is very well established if it comes weighted with so much personal emotion. I also think that scientists’ beliefs bias the presentation of the facts.

The science isn’t weighted with personal emotion. The science is completely emotionless. Scientists, however, do get emotional when they are told over and over by people who don’t have the first clue about that which they speak that scientists don’t know what they are talking about and/or that they are trying to destroy God. I have been accused on many occasions on this forum of being an athiest simply because I accept what science has found rather than being a biblical literalist.

Peace

Tim