Say Anything Blog

Now thinking about how human beings came to exist on Earth, do you, personally, believe in evolution, or not?

It is important to note that this question included a specific reference to “thinking about how human beings came to exist on Earth . . .” that oriented the respondents toward an explicit consideration of the implication of evolution for man’s origin.

Results may have been different without this introductory phrase.

In other words, the people taking this survey were probably confused by the questions.

What I find interesting is that 81% agreed that “Man developed, with God guiding” or “God created man in present form”.  That tells you that at least 81% did not consider themselves atheist (though it doesn’t necessarily tell you that they were Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, et cetera).

I think the real problems here are that: a) there is a real, though minor conflict between the theory of evolution and the book of Genesis; b) it is very unlikely that we will ever find evidence that bolsters evolutionary theory beyond a reasonable doubt (hell, nobody can agree whether birds evolved from dinosaurs even though they have found a few possible candidates for transitional forms); and c) it really isn’t consequential to anyone’s life whether they believe in evolution or divine genesis.

People talk about Republicans and their inability to grasp science…

Why is this subject the one litmus test as to whether one understands all of science or the scientific method?  Really, Rob, does it really matter that much whether one believes in evolution or divine genesis?  Both require a belief bolstered by inductive reasoning because of the lack of evidence.  So, it really comes down to whether you believe in the divine and how much you believe the narrative that each religion espouses regarding the beginning of the world.

Next thing you’ll be agreeing with something like this

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

Third, we should remember that the sort of people who respond to polls like this seem inordinately dumb.

I think you’re being unduly generous here.  Most people, not just those that “respond to polls,” either a) just aren’t that bright or b) really don’t care either way (having other concerns of their own) and just spit back the perceived norm of their community.

And I am still waiting for someone, ANYONE, to prove God(by whatever name you wish) is not using evolution to create the World. Not like it is a finished project.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

It can be confusing considering that the Pope has said that the Theory of Evolution is consistent with religion. Closely related and adding to the confusion is the fact that a Catholic priest named Georges Lemaître, who was also a physicist, first proposed the modern Big Bang Theory in 1927.

Some scientists will argue that God didn’t create the universe. It was created by the Big Bang. Would a Catholic priest propose a theory contradicting his religious beliefs?  If you follow the basic sequence of events in Genesis, the Big Bang, and Evolution, they are remarkably similar. This could be the basis for a belief that they are compatible. There is a growing acknowledgment among religious people that men actually wrote the words in the Bible as God was speaking to them which explains the differences in the time lines.

The really annoying thing is that, even though neither the Big Bang or Evolution have been proven, our kids come out of high school believing both of them to be fact. The ones who enter scientific disciplines spend their careers trying to complete the proof of one of them when what we need to do is move beyond the glass scientific ceilings established by the brilliant scientists of Einstein’s era. Einstein and Newton both lamented that they knew nothing.

The most telling quote in this perceived conflict comes from Einstein who said, “I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.”

As for not knowing who our current government officials are, that’s like calling some one stupid because they don’t know who Bozo the Clown was.

As for not knowing who our current government officials are, that’s like calling some one stupid because they don’t know who Bozo the Clown was.

Except that Bozo the Clown is just some silly TV star who entertained silly kids from before our time. Our elected representatives are a different matter.

Except that Bozo the Clown is just some silly TV star who entertained silly kids from before our time. Our elected representatives are a different matter.

Lik,

In the first place, I remember Bozo the clown.  Hell, I remember Howdie Doodie, Clarabell, Buffalo Bob, and of course, Princess Summer-Fall-Winter-Spring!

Second, I find the analogy between Bozo the Clown and our elected officials to be exceptionally appropriate.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

There is a growing acknowledgment among religious people that men actually wrote the words in the Bible as God was speaking to them which explains the differences in the time lines.

Please cite this.

The really annoying thing is that, even though neither the Big Bang or Evolution have been proven, our kids come out of high school believing both of them to be fact. The ones who enter scientific disciplines spend their careers trying to complete the proof of one of them

The Big Bang and evolution are essentially unprovable theories, for which a lot of supporting evidence has been collected (and hopefully a lot more will be too).
If you want your theories to be taken seriously, then find (peer reviewed) evidence to support them. Good luck.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

It is very interesting that in such polls, if people seem to believe in a Creator, atheists and agnostics automatically classify these people as ignorant fools, dumb sheep, hillbillies and etcetera. There have been and are today innumerable people of great intellect and even scientific minds that embrace the idea of a Divive Creator, but it is easier to fit these people into our pockets if we just say they are dumb.

2Hotel9: 1. Because God talks about a creation of all things in six days. 2. Since the word for day in Genesis is the same ancient Hebrew word for a period of time which is roughly 24- hours in length, we have no biblical justification for assuming He used the word day to mean an indeterminate period of time. Without other words in the text to modify the word day to mean something other than a 24 hour day, then it would be bad scholarship to assume that 24 hours meant another period of time.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

This section of the poll analysis also is interesting indicating that the entire poll results and its analysis need to be looked at together, not just cherrypicking one question.

It might seem contradictory to believe that humans were created in their present form at one time within the past 10,000 years and at the same time believe that humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. But, based on an analysis of the two side-by-side questions asked this month about evolution and creationism, it appears that a substantial number of Americans hold these conflicting views.

it’s rather stunning to see such a broad embrace of creationism and rejection of evolution across the ideological spectrum

Spoken by a true atheist.  I don’t find it stunning at all.  Most religious people do not reject evolution but are annoyed because it is being portrayed as fact instead of unproven theory that it really is.

we should remember that the sort of people who respond to polls like this seem inordinately dumb.

That is an unecessary demeaning statement especially since you have no facts to back it up.

Since the word for day in Genesis is the same ancient Hebrew word for a period of time which is roughly 24- hours.

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

You see God as a limited, narrowly defined artifact. I see him as all existence. Past, Present, Future. Do you actually believe God is limited to that which you can conceive?

Still nothing even approaching a hypotheses alleging that God(by whatever name you wish to use) is not using evolution to create the world.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

sure, i believe some dude made the universe.
not.
it really amazes me when people count as a pro or a con, for presidential candidates, whether or not they believe some omniscient dude created the universe. its kinda bizarre in fact. i mean, that’s a lot of people who reject reality, am i right? and we prefer presidents who reject reality? just weird if you ask me.

People talk about Republicans and their inability to grasp science, but that problem seems to extend well beyond the GOP.

Part of the reason for this is likely the inconsistency within the scientific method.  The scientific method claims no philosophical bias but then only permits scienctific investigation which in practice first assumes nature is all there is.

Furthermore, such a scientific method by definition and practice cannot prove or disprove a creator and subsequently creation.  Yet, many claim darwinism is proof there is no creator nor creation despite the fact that the scientific method is limited sufficiently so that such a conclusion cannot be reached without circular reasoning.

I personally see nothing contradictory about Creationism and Evolution… although a lot of that depends on how you define evolution.  I believe that God created the universe and everything in it, but I would be quite surprised if people and animals hadn’t changed (evolved) over the last several thousand years.

"No Sane man will dance.”—Cicero

The real inability to grasp science is found among those who try to claim science proves there is no creator or creation.

there is no reason, that is not silly/BS/unbelievable, to believe that creation is true. c’mon.

It is not reasonable to most Americans to conclude that intelligence evolved and such evolution proves God doesn’t exist.
To the majority it stands to reason a sufficient intelligence capable of effecting intelligent beings exists.

Sparkie,

Why do you find someone else’s religious beliefs so irksome and offensive?  I don’t recall reading any news reports of American Christians threatening to slit the throats of those of you who refuse to accept our faith as your own.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me you spend more energy criticizing us than you do the Islamists who would be all too willing to remove your head in front of a video camera if you had the temerity to voice a similar disbelief in Allah.  What’s with that, anyway?

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Don’t worry Bat. I think its silly what they believe too. Just because one is less silly, doesn’t make me think its real. You seem to imply that I condone the beheading?

To engage in much debate about this issue is an exercise in futility, as no one will ever change their rigid opinions. However, I often stupidly go where even angels fear to go and so here I go again.

DocDave: 1. Please give me 2-3 references in Scripture wherein God declared the earth to be the physical center of the universe? If ignorant people chose to believe earth was the center of the universe, why blame God? 2. Scripture however tells us that earth is the spiritual center of the universe as it involves God dealings with humanity.

In the Old Testament the Hebrew Word “Yom,” can be defined as a roughly a 24-hour day, a moment in time, a year or something longer like a generation or a season of time like a dispensation. How we define the word Yom is dictated by the context in which it is used, and in Genesis we see the word day (YOM) after God created Light (day) and by default dark (night). Thereafter we find Him using morning and evening as a combined unit of time being a roughly 24-hour day, to divide His specific acts of Creation. We find nothing else in the six days of creation that would give even an atheist scholar justification for saying a day or the seven days were an indeterminate period of time. You may accept or reject God’s Word, what you are not permitted to do is edit His Word and He condemns anyone that would add or detract from the clear words He dicated.

You are naturally uncomfortable harmonizing the scientific data of billions and billions of years for the universe and the earth in particular with the idea conveyed in God’s Word of His creating everything that exists with 6 roughly 24 hour days. So, having no answer that makes you feel comfortable you choose to read something (evolution) into the Genesis account that is wholly unwaranted by the clear language thereof.

Well, what about that time thing? Science cannot be wrong? 1. Yes, science indeed can be unbelievably wrong about some things (human caused global warming?. 2. When Adam was created we hear nothing of an infant, toddler or even a young teenager phase for him. Adam is created as a young adult, complete in every way including his ability to speak and understand God speaking to Him. In other words, he had all the appearance of greater age when he was but a few minutes old, just as the universe and the earth have an appearance of age much greater than its 6,000 to 10,000 years. If you had given Adam a physical examination he would have adult organs and an adult body by scientific measurement, while being only moments old. It makes sense that if God’s human creation was to be able to occupy this earth He would have to create it, even from a scientific point of view, as a mature planet with a mature universe, while being much, much younger as counted by earthly years.

Daniel: Evolution or environmental adaptations within a kind are observable facts, while the idea of vertical evolution of one kind of animal into another kind is not supported by the observable facts. A cat might evolve differently for a variety of reason into other forms of cat, while I see no objective evidence of a cat becoming an elephant.

Sparkie said “it really amazes me when people count as a pro or a con, for presidential candidates, whether or not they believe some omniscient dude created the universe.” It amazes me that we might ever vote for someone adhering to the idiotic drivel of the evolution of the species to account for the existence of life. The same scientifc data are available for evolutionists and creationists, but both rely upon their underlying life model to guide them in analyzing the available data and making conclusions about the data. Both are religions as both, while examining all the available evidence, apply scientific principles to analyze the data; and the Creationists conclude the data best fits into the Divine Creation model while the atheist scientists conclude the data rejects the idea of any Divine Origin and that their evolutionary model best fits that data. In the dark ages those rejecting the Divine Life Model were silenced, just as those accepting the Divine Life Model are for all intent and purposes silenced today.

It all depends upon a degree of faith built upon logic and intellectual reasoning, but the difference is the underlying life model through which the data is analized.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

the idiotic drivel of the evolution of the species to account for the existence of life

that is idiotic drivel. the primodial soup experiments showed that organic matter and protoalgaes can be created from elements perhaps present on the early earth. they have replicated it in a loop in the lab. i believe it was someone in england, maybe early 1900s. from there on, evolution plays a large roll. those cealocanths are somethin’ eh?

(those are fish with flipper/legs. very old fish. like alligator old.)

sorry.
‘coelacanth’.

You seem to imply that I condone the beheading?

Sparkie,

Your suggestion is offensive.  I am not that ignorant or small minded, and neither are you.

I was merely remarking that you spend far more time and energy criticizing those who present no threat to you (except for your atheist sensibilities, of course) than you do those who would slit your throat as a bloody sacrifice to their god just for the practice.  Your chosen focus strikes me as oddly eclectic, if not a bit bizarre.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Your chosen focus strikes me as oddly eclectic, if not a bit bizarre.

Perhaps its just a reflection of the fact that I like to agitate and most around here aren’t dissing on Jesus. Maybe then I would take up his cause. Most opinions held by large groups of people are probably drivel, as this post notes, however delicately, ”stunning (to me, anyway)”. I know how stupid my theory is too. C’mon. Everybody has ‘em. I just picked out the one I like best. The whole seven day thing is just too refetched for me, what can I say?

”Coelacanth, in particular, supposedly vanished 135 million years ago before its hyped 1938 discovery in waters near Madagascar, Menton noted.

“It was known in the fossil record a long time before we found a living one,” Menton said. “They are a fish; they do not walk on the land; they use these fins to swim with.” A 1955 Scientific American article exposing its consistent lineage embarrassed evolutionists, he said, because “it didn’t evolve; it didn’t change; it looked like the one found in the fossil record. None of the lobe-fin fish, including Tiktaalik, have bones attaching their fins to the axial skeleton,” Menton said.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman,

Ever heard of flying fish?  I suppose they evolved into birds? Or did birds evolve into fish?

Fish that ‘fly’
“The members of the fish family Exocoetidae, one of the families known as ‘flying fish,’ possess enlarged pectoral fins. Having propelled themselves out of the water with great force, they spread these fins out like wings to glide through the air for up to several dozen metres.” They are not fish flying in the air, they simply force themselves out of the water and glide a very short distance.

We can go over many such alleged evolved animals, but there are reasonable alternative answers to those offered by proponents of the religion of Darwinism. The evolutionists want this sailing/gliding fish to fit into their life model, so they imagine an intermediary fully formed vertical transitional form where none exists!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman, if you really want to confront the evidentiary body supporting evolution as an observational fact… then you have a very long steep road you’re going to have to climb. 

I’m not sure I have enough time this year to adequately address the more than 30 lines of research that converge to the conclusion that the Earth is old (4 billion years), that life has gone from simpler forms to more complex ones over time, and that humans are very near relatives of other higher mammals.

In the mean time, count me in with 2Hotel9:

And I am still waiting for someone, ANYONE, to prove God(by whatever name you wish) is not using evolution to create the World.

While I consider the Bible to be an important source of spiritual revelation, I don’t hold it to the same standards as n engineering textbook for discussions of how e.g. to build a transistor radio or a DVD player.  Which is pretty much what you guys are trying to do when you are trying to apply 3000 year old epistemological or cosmogonous thought (divinely inspired or otherwise) to what we have learned about our world since those ancient texts were first recorded on papyrus…

I’m with Carrick in that the bible is a decent spiritual guide (if you can ignore some of the contradictions), as are most of the world’s major religions, but as someone who doesn’t believe in god i can’t help but take his analysis a step further and wonder why those moral teachings can’t be taught without the supernatural dogma.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

then you have a very long steep road you’re going to have to climb. 

Some of us view it as a slippery slope.
But, I agree it is a long and arduous journey.

Coelacanth???

Looks like my former mother-in-law, only the scales are bigger.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

(if you can ignore some of the contradictions),

Rob,

An oft made assertion.  When put into the context of the biblical story there are no contradictions.

and wonder why those moral teachings can’t be taught without the supernatural dogma.

Many do teach them without a six day creation and dogma. The “Emerging church movement” boasts many such teachings. But it is evident the language in the Bible is not as exclusively figurative as some prefer to see it.

Carrick,

The implication in the post is that those who grasp the scientific model have determined there is no God—something the modern scientific model cannot prove.

An oft made assertion.  When put into the context of the biblical story there are no contradictions.

Well, this:

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Isn’t exactly in keeping with “love thy neighbor.”

Nor does this:

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the Lord your God must die. In this way you will purge the evil from Israel.

My point is that there are some antiquated teachings in the bible that modern Christians obviously ignore.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Sorry, those passages were from Leviticus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 17:12, respectively.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

HG:

The implication in the post is that those who grasp the scientific model have determined there is no God—something the modern scientific model cannot prove.

I’m not sure where that implication is, though it is certainly false.

The scientific method, as it applies to empirically assessable phenomenon, certainly has little to say about God, other than we can conclude He is not a “natural phenomenon"…

Rob, I pretty much agree with you on the inconsistencies of the BIble, especially the Old Testament.  You can also approach the teachings of Jesus from a strictly ethics and philosophical viewpoint.  When one looks at the impact that Jesus had for the promotion of human rights etc and just how far ahead he was of common practices of the time, it is easy to understand why he has had such a huge impact on Western thought… even discounting the questions of his divinity.

My point is that there are some antiquated teachings in the bible that modern Christians obviously ignore.

Those verses were given directly to the nation being birthed—Israel.  Israel was intended to be a representation of the kingdom of God on earth.  God as the Supreme being and ultimate authority demanded conformity to His laws by the subjects of the nation He established.  No other nation was given those commandments nor was any other nation required to replace their laws with those given to Israel.  It is then not that Christians ignore the law given to Israel, but that the church is not a government nor are Christians citizens of Israel and therefore have no responsibility to act in the capacity of said nation.

HG, the biggest inconsistency in the Bible is the contradiction between the age of the Earth determined from a literal reading of the Bible and the overwhelming geological evidence to the contrary.

I can see your point Carrick, but rather than fault the biblical record as inconsistent based upon what we as human beings can discern from observation alone, an observation that does not take into account the supernatural, it is no less likely that the inconsistency is on our part.  For if there is a Creator who supernaturally created and has acted in other supernatural ways throughout history, our exclusively naturalistic approach to observable evidence will be very inconsistent with earth’s history.

HG, there are well over thirty different lines of research that all converge on the Earth being at least 4 billion years of age.  If all of these lines of research are wrong, one would rightly conclude that God is some sly trickster.

More logically, one can simply bridge the gap in the logic that requires the Bible to be an infallible text.  In that case, we have 3000 year old human thought meeting modern thinking… and losing badly.

If all of these lines of research are wrong, one would rightly conclude that God is some sly trickster.

The cataclysmic account of the world-wide flood claimed in approx. 3000 B.C. is recorded in the NT as destroying the earth previously known before the event.  If true, how can we possibly know what observe what the earth was like prior to the global destruction of the flood? 

Sly-trickster?  Not if he provided an accurate historical account in the Bible.

Carrick,

I think the contradictions Rob claims are thought to be within the bible, not the bible vs. modern thought.  Nobody doubts those exist.

I not only don’t seem to fit in my party, if the results of this poll are to be believed, I really don’t fit in with the rest of Americans either.

According to the poll, most Democrats and Independents do believe in evolution.  It’s the Republicans who overwhelming reject it.  As Carrick points out, anyone who doesn’t believe in evolution is just plain ignorant of modern science.

You may accept or reject God’s Word, what you are not permitted to do is edit His Word and He condemns anyone that would add or detract from the clear words He dictated

Neiman,
The Old Testament is a long way from the Torah, having been translated into Greek, then Latin, then English, with many omissions and editing along the way.
I respect your faith and do not intend insult to you or others amongst the faithful. However, in my opinion, the creation myth of the Old Testament is nothing more than the superstitious murmurings of a bunch of goat-herders, told around the campfires on many an evening (as, I imagine, are many of the other parables and tales contained therein).

HG, the flood is just tosh. Obviously there have been huge floods throughout history, but one large enough to cover all the land? There is just not enough water in the world.
Rain for forty days and nights is just a long time for someone who is basically innumerate and ‘the world’ for these people was just their immediate surroundings, they had no comprehension of the world (and certainly not the universe) as we perceive it.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

HG the flood story in the Bible may be traced to an older legend originating in Mesopotamia.  Even a cataclysmic flood would have left tell-tell signs, and there is frankly no possibility that such a flood as described in the BIble ever happened.

MOFAL, it rained for 40 days for the same reason that there are 40 days of Lent.  It isn’t just a big number, it’s one that carries symbolic meaning in numerology, having I think to do with closure or completion.  Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness, signaling a completion of the task.

In the end, many numbers in the Bible have more to do with their symbolic interpretation than a more literal one.  And that is part of the problem with attempting to apply modern thinking to ancient Biblical texts.

ROB:
Contraindications in the Bible are eagerly raised by skeptics as proof that the Bible contains errors and thus cannot be God’s Word. One need only remember that the Bible has been proven wrong many times on the basis of then available knowledge either of science or history, However, in every case when all the evidence was uncovered the Bible has vindicated.

Your contention is that Love and punishment of evil are inconsistent. The truth is, Love without discipline and punishment of wrongdoing is not real love at all. You would punish a child if he/she harmed someone else, that your child might learn thereby that their actions were harmful to themselves and others and they wouldn’t repeat them. A mother or father that really loves their child will bring loving discipline into their lives through just punishment. God as our Father will bring discipline to all His children in hopes they will repent (turn away) from evil and lead happy lives. Those choosing to reject God by deliberately disobeying His laws could not be part of His family; and if these sins are not repented, the only possible end is death (conscious eternal separation from God); but they faced this death penalty not because God did not Love them and didn’t desire to save them all, rather He punished everyone of all their sins through the death of His Son, forgave us in the shed blood of Christ and saved us through the resurrection of Jesus; but the people in the verses you selected chose through obstinate disobedience of Him, choosing to follow their own lusts, chose thereby to be separated from Him in the darkness of eternal damnation (death). It was never God’s desire they choose that end, He saved them too, they just rejected His Salvation.

I never expect you to change your views, but if you have not read them might I suggest “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis (A former atheist) or “Evidence that Demands a Verdict,” by Josh McDowell. At least then you will know the basis for our faith and have in your hands the very best answers to the questions atheists and agnostics typically raise to disprove the existence of God.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman:

However, in every case when all the evidence was uncovered the Bible has vindicated.

Or in some cases, as with geocentrism, deciding that the Bible never actually said that the Earth was the center of the Universe, even though that was prior to the revolution in thought standard thinking.  (Cleverly enough there are still people who claim that the Sun revolves around the Earth based on Biblical evidence.)

In the end, the question is how much wiggle room is there in the literal interpretation of the Bible?  I think that the age of the Earth, macroevolution and the close genetic relationship between humans and other mammalian species are all three severe tests of the Bible as an infallible document.

ManofFireandLight: There are simply too many ancient documents, even pieces of ancient copies of the Torah for your claim to have any credibility. The faithfulness of the Jewish Scribes to reproduce Scripture and the methodology employed by them to insure accuracy would testify against your position. With all the biblical and extrabiblical documents we have found, from the most ancient texts, any errors have been rare and so minor in degree that the we absolutely know the Bible is the most reliable ancient text in all human history.

Carrick: I don’t have the time or quite frankly the interest in defending the flood of Noah. There are books and scholars that convincingly produce and defend evidence of a global flood. Even atheist scientists have found such geologic evidence. I don’t have the scientific background that would allow me easily to address all the rebuttals you would offer, so the best I could do, though I know you are not interested, is refer you to two reputable Creation Science groups that can readily provide you with exhaustive, scientific answers to absolutely every question you might raise. At the end of the day, you are faced with two explanations for the existence of all life: 1. Darwinian Evolution. 2. Creation Science. Both of these belief systems will take the same facts, feed them into their life model and in the case of evolution, force, twist and contort the facts to defend the indefensible!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

MOFAL,

Again, naturalistic explanations cannot address supernatural acts.  According to the record the flood was miraculous—supernatural intervention—not limited by natural human understanding or claims of a continuous state.  Prior to the flood the earth is recorded to be different and since such a state is no longer observable, we struggle to comprehend all of earth’s history from mere human observation and understanding.

Neiman, there is no credible evidence for a global flood.  period.

The story makes no sense, it could never have happened in the way described:  There is no way that Noah could possibly have rescued enough animals from each species to explain the large genetic diversity observed, there is no explanation for how the saved animals were returned to the disparate seven continents, etc. 

As the unerring retelling of a world-wide flood, it is just preposterous nonsense.

Your Creation Science people do little more than cherry pick warts in data and obfuscate details, because that is all they have left to do.

The basic main facts are as I have described them:  The Earth is old, life evolved from primitive to more complex forms over the period of some 600 million years, and humans are closely genetically related to members of the primate family.  Microscopically, the details about these will change as the data improve, but these basic facts have long ago been established beyond any reasonable doubt.

HG:

Prior to the flood the earth is recorded to be different
and since such a state is no longer observable, we struggle to comprehend
all of earth’s history from mere human observation and understanding.

I suppose you could argue that this supernaturally generate water didn’t behave like a normal flood, in which case that would explain away the lack of any evidence for it.

But that’s a pretty lame argument as far as I can see.  And you still really have to go overtime to explain the continuity of life in each region before and after the flood for which there is no other evidence (including the human cultures that survived the flood intact on the North American continent and along the Pacific Rim, etc).

Garrick: You, like most atheists and agnostics are intellectually too lazy to look at the scientific facts offered by those not sharing your Darwinian life model. You might accuse Christians of the same thing except for one little problem - we have all been indoctrinated in Darwinian Evolutionary theory, we were forced to by secular humanists that control our liberal education system to only be able to hear their evolutionary nonsense.

There is no amount of geological evidence of a global flood that you would not reject out of hand because it would force you to examine your own bias and your prior rejection of the facts. It is not unlike Human Caused Global warming, the Left insists it is true despite the evidence to the contrary, this liberal dogma is taught in our schools, and anyone not adhering to this dogma will not long remain in the educational system, they will not be granted peer review of articles submitted to the leading scientific journals and they will see their careers destroyed. Very open minded!

Lastly, just because you loudly say it cannot be true it doesn’t make it so.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Carrick,

I am not arguing the behavior of flood waters during the global flood.  I am pointing out the fact that such an event is said to be supernatural in origin and therfore not limited by naturalistic explanations and finite human understanding. 

The fact that God has gone on the record on this issue removes any suggestion that He is trying to trick anyone.  It is humanity that has rejected His witness to these events in earth’s history and is seeking another explanation.  One, by the way, that assumes humanity is brilliant enough to figure it all out on our own.

2 Peter 3:5-7 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:  Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

This Peter recorded over 3000 years after the event is recorded to have taken place.

Neiman, you like most Biblical literalists assume that anybody who isn’t a literalist like yourself must be an atheist.  That is indefensible behavior on your part. 

I’m a Christian and have a much deeper and more active spiritual life than most people I know who go around claiming that title.  I just happen to be from the school of practicing what Jesus teaches rather than debating what every syllable of the Text means, as if that has any useful function.

As to “no amount of geological evidence of a global flood"… why don’t we start with “no shred of geological evidence of a global flood”?  Because frankly that’s what I find most bothersome about claims of a global flood!

I’ve already listed a number of easily verifiable reasons why the flood could not have happened as it was described.  Is there any point in my repeating them?  I happen to think that the flood story is based on a factual occurrence, probably the flooding of the Black Sea at the end of the last ice age that lead to the Disporia of the proto-Indian-European peoples.  And that explains the occurrence of that flood story in all of these different cultures as well as the common root words among those groups of people.

As to Creation scientists not being allowed access to scientific journals, that is a crock as well.  They get denied access because most of what they write is rubbish.  Any scientist of any mettle is always interested in alternative, well-thought out viewpoints, and journals love them, because controversy stirs up interest in that journal.

The problems for your Creationists is that what they say amounts to picking at the warts of a theory or experimental fact without understanding that in order to overturn the theory of the interpretation of the evidence, you have to overturn the premise, not just nitpick and squabble over details, like whether a specimen was 4.3 kg, rather than 4.1 kg.

Finally, I am quite aware that simply because I make a claim makes that claim neither true nor false. The fact that any reasonable person can verify for themselves the accuracy of my claims is what makes them convincing, not the mere fact that I uttered them.

While evolution may very well be a possibility from our exclusively naturalistc observations, it must be admitted it is not the only possibility given a supernatural Creator.  Modern science is a fixed method of investigation considering all data as if nature is all there is.  Any theoretical conclusion reached by such an approach will never attribute anything to the supernatural and therefore, since there is a Supernatural Creator, is terribly flawed when attempting to investigate such mysteries as the origin of life.

HG, as I see it, the Earth is part of God’s record too.  Unlike you, however, I look at the Bible as a collection of writings of men about God and therefore a fallible document.  For me, the story of Noah is not God’s word, but Man’s.  As a fable, that doesn’t make it meaningless, for there are still things of spiritual value to be learned from it regardless of its historical accuracy.

I guess some of us just need to have a concrete thing that they can hang their belief upon.  The way I see it, the search for certainty eliminates the need for faith, and in that sense is actually spiritually harmful.

Carrick,

I do respect your opinion even though we disagree.  As to faith?  Read Hebrews 11, or any other example of faith in the Bible.  Faith is absolute confidence in the veracity of another, in this case, God.  Faith is always measured by certainty of mind which results in obedience to the revealed will of God, not blind hope in the unknowable. 

If you haven’t you might consider a study of bibliology which considers the extra-biblical as well as biblical proofs for the accuracy and neccessity of Scripture.

HG, I’ve had a fair amount of training in theological and philosophical matters, though I’m always interested in other’s views. I’m closer to the Catholic position regarding Biblical inerrancy.  But nonetheless I’m always interested in others viewpoints....

In considering this matter, one could start by asking if a story that was clearly meant to be teaching story must be considered also to be a historically retelling of events that happened in somebody’s life.

Would you for example, clam that the Prodigal Son was a real person?  I certainly would make no such claim.

Secondly, should we read the poetry in the Bible in Psalms and Solomon as literally as we would a scientific text?  I would not, I would use similar rules of literary interpretation I would use for any other work of fiction.  If somebody uses the number “seven” as in a lamb with seven horns and seven eyes, I wouldn’t assume that we were talking about a lamb, or that the lamb was some strange abomination (for me, seven horns = perfect wisdom following literary conventions of those days just as seven eyes = all seeing).

Then there is the story of Job.  An entire Book of the Old Testament.  Is the point of this book the story of what happened to Job and its resolution, or is the point that there was this guy named “Job” who had a really tough go of things for a while?

This is really a distinction with a difference.  Taken as a teaching story (which is what I hold the story of Job to be), what we learn from Job’s trials addresses the coexistence of good and evil in the world, why “bad things happen to good people” and so forth.  Taken with that viewpoint, does it even matter whether there literally was a historical person named Job?  (Or if he existed, does it matter whether the story about his life is literally true?)

But once one morphs that viewpoint into “yeah, but look at all the H*ll that Goid put Job through , etc.” that a literalist interpretation yields and you all of a sudden have a whole host of intentions and implications that you have to be able to resolve.  None of which, I would contend, were ever meant to have been inspired from the original story.

Garrick: Now get this straight, because I get tired of people that say that I have said something I haven’t: I don’t have the right nor the desire to judge any human being’s eternal fate. You say you are a Christian, fine that may be true. Yet, by denying the Genesis account, you are saying that God was either unable to control his scribes, which means He is not all-powerful; or He simply, was not interested in conveying the Truth to His human creation. If either proposition is true, then He cannot be God and the entirety of the Christian faith is a lie.

Either God is able to say exactly what He means or we can never trust Him to mean anything He says, including about Salvation, and that likewise means He does not and cannot exist. If you reject the Genesis account of creation, adding information not clearly contained in the text or added elsewhere in Holy Writ, then there is no God, no Christ and we are all the result of an impossible number of random mutations over time.

I am a literalist as it involves His Word, but that does not mean that I am unable to understand when He is speaking to us in parables or similies, and that He can use figurative things and symbols to provide us with His Truth. However, I find nothing of that kind in Genesis One, nor have I found any hint that this is not a literal account anywhere else in Scripture.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Nieman, you determined that I was either an atheist or an agnostic, based simply on the fact I don’t believe in things exactly as you do.  Those are your words.  Recant them if you want, but please refrain from BS about “ I get tired of people that say that I have said something I haven’t” when all we’re doing is responding to what you did say.

As to the rest… we are informed about God by other sources than just the scriptures.  We are informed by interactions with other people, and by interactions with our universe.  Because there really is such a thing as “good” and “evil,” and because there are even have objective consequences to “good” versus “evil” acts, we do not need the Bible to the end-all and only source of spiritual knowledge.  Nor could any book of finite length ever give full revelation of Him or His Purpose in any case.

It is people like you who have decided that you need Scripture to be literal (you did a good job articulating the drastic consequences of that) who have boxed yourself into a corner on this one.

On the one hand, we have some pretty dramatic claims from Genesis, the creation stories, Noah’s flood and so forth… all of which are at complete odds with what our minds, eyes and ears tell us really happened.  It is your interpretation that is a dinosaur in danger of extinction here, because there are consequences of your interpretations of Genesis in particular that are objectively falsifiable.  We are either left with what our minds, eyes and ears telling us being fabrications (the Great Trickster viewpoint) or we simply determine that biblical literalism is all wet and needs to be replaced by a more sophisticated spiritual doctrine.

Yet, by denying the Genesis account, you are saying that God was either unable to control his scribes, which means He is not all-powerful; or He simply, was not interested in conveying the Truth to His human creation.

Geez… talking about putting words into other’s mouths!

What I would say is a) even scribes have free will so they can choose to write what they please and are as prone to acts of politics as the rest of us, b) the revelations of scripture are incomplete (further revelation is ongoing, and is unique for each individual among us), c) it is not in God’s Purpose to give us complete revelations about Him in this life (nor for that matter would it even be possible).

On the one hand, we have some pretty dramatic claims from Genesis, the creation stories,

Creation Stories?? as in plural… more than one! Neiman believes there is only ONE creation story.  Wrap your mind around that!

"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”
- John Adams

Troy.  Stories means in this case many and numerous instances of a history.
Just like the history of the USA, some come from the “European” perspective, some from the Native American (bad) experience, the French, Spanish, English, Canadian, trappers, Amish, Dutch, German and many others.  Some were translated from languages.  I would be glad to discuss this with you.  Let’s start with a simple question that can be verified historically:  Was there a city called Babylon?

Communism is evil

Carrick,

I agree there are various forms of language in the bible one of which is poetry.  The prodigal son?  Yeah, I tend to think that he was speaking of an actual person and that person’s experience. 

The Psalms are clearly poetic and should clearly not be read as a scientific text.

Job is a literal person and the account of his life literal as well.

It seems what this modernism vs. fundamentalism debate boils down to is do we accept the miraculous?  Did God just get the evolutionary ball rolling then sit back and enjoy the show?  Or, is He a personal God who desires a relationship with His creatures and has miraculously intervened in the affairs of men in an effort to reveal a knowledge of Himself which no amount of scientific observation could yeild?  I believe this is the God who created us all.

Garrick: I have said it before: 1. I did not judge your salvation, I only reacted to your rejection of much of God’s Word and assumed by them you were an atheist. Perhaps you are a Christian, which is great, but regarding evolution versus Divine Creation you sure talk like an atheist 2. What about Jesus calling Peter a son Satan? Was He judging his eternal destiny or making it clear than in what Peter was saying at that moment in time, by his own words he was more in line with the spirit of Satan and not with God’s Will? 3. Thus, to me your denial of the truth of Genesis One, which describes God’s unique creation of all things in six days, at that moment within the limits of your words, it appeared you were more inline with atheism and/or agnosticism than with Christ. So, your own rejection of the very foundation of God’s Word seemed to reflect an atheist view and so I assumed you were an atheist, which is your fault, not mine.

You fail to understand the written word very well. I didn’t put words in your mouth, I spoke to the natural consequences of your words. (a) If you are right that God was unable to choose a scribe fully surrendered to His Will, then He is not, He cannot be Omniscient (All-Knowing) and (b) if He was unable to control (omnipotence) the work of His Scribes to make sure his exact words and Will down to the smallest letter were conveyed 100% accurately to man. If on the other hand, you are correct and He is thus absent All-Power, All-Knowledge and any real concern about being heard correctly; then the consequence is that God does not, He cannot exist at all. I am ready to stand by those words! Why? Because God must have those attributes and characteristics or He doesn’t exist!

God does not give us a choice, Christianity is not a menu from which we can choose various items that make us comfortable and reject those that don’t. For instance, we cannot say Jesus was a good man and then deny His Deity; as anyone claiming to be God as Jesus does, while insisting faith in Him was the only way to be saved, was either a lunatic or a liar. God does not allow us to add or detract from His clear words, even in Genesis One; He presents the facts in a very clear manner, using simple words, He uses evening and morning deliberately to make it clear He is talking in our frame of reference to a roughly 24-hour day times six to create all things. You may accept His Word or deny His very existence, but He has not allowed us to edit His Word to make it more palatable to those uncomfortable with the idea all things were created by Him; and the world and the universe were created in six days. Either believe His every Word as being Truth or you must reject His very existence.

To suggest that Divine Revelation is not complete is a trap. It means that He failed to tell His children all they would need to know for time and eternity. Thus, a future revelation might say that Allah is the true god and Mohammed his messenger, He might reveal that Oprah is right and all religions are but different paths to the same God, or He might tell us that a future man having gained control of all the world’s governments and finance is really God in the flesh?. What kind of a God of Love, a Divine Father would fail to tell His children all they needed to know to find His Salvation and to reveal His Perfect Will for thier lives.

You will continue being angry and looking for ways to attack me, because either I buy into the idea that Genesis One really is a description of how God used evolution to accomplish His will, or you must admit you are wrong. You are in a trap. What is it? Is God the Divine Evolutionist-In-Chief or can we trust His every word as written; and by neither adding or substracting from God’s Word, accept it as written?

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Because most religions offer offer no valid mechanism by which their core beliefs can be tested and revised, each new generation of believers is condemned to inherit the superstitions and tribal hatreds of its predecessors.

“The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes.”—The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.”

Joel,

In my own experience, your statement rings true.  Evangelicals have on occasion emphasized the traditions and teachings of those teachers and orators whose presence is so large that it obscures the fact that what their saying in found nowhere in the bible.  Without a standard by which to judge the teachings and actions of ourselves and others, we are at the mercy of the current trends or traditions of religion.

Joel: I would agree that is the normal course of events; except Christians have direct contact by prayer and study of Scripture to the Holy Spirit, which Divine Being inspired every word of Scripture. While we are all struggling and imperfect, those seeking such an intimate relationship with God will for the most part avoid, even cast off such superstitions, like Martin Luther.

Whether you agree or not, most Christians believe that they are not at all religious, rather they have spiritual life and communion with Christ, which is the sum total of their lives.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.