Jeff,
I believe Ray was referring to this: (stolen from Wikipedia)
The Scopes Trial—formally known as The State of Tennessee vs. Scopes and informally known as the Scopes Monkey Trial—was an American legal case in 1925 in which high school biology teacher John Scopes was accused of violating the state's Butler Act which made it unlawful to teach evolution.[1]
Scopes was found guilty, but the verdict was overturned on a technicality and he was never brought back to trial. The trial drew intense national publicity, as national reporters flocked to the small town of Dayton, to cover the big-name lawyers representing each side. William Jennings Bryan, three time presidential candidate for the Democrats, argued for the prosecution, while Clarence Darrow, the famed defense attorney, spoke for Scopes. The trial saw modernists, who said religion was consistent with evolution, against fundamentalists who said the word of God as revealed in the Bible trumped all human knowledge. The trial was thus both a religious or theological contest, and a trial on the veracity of modern science regarding the creation-evolution controversy....(Google it and read more, if you'd like)
I think it was more permissable in 1925, before the internet and the information age. There's not really an excuse to be a creationist at this point, since you can do a brief google search to disprove every creationist claim ever made. I'm an undergrad and I can debunk them all based on a few semesters of biology and physics.
I was facinated by an article that I recently read, written by an atheist, who chided his commrades for antagonism toward those who do not believe like they do. It appears that some respectable atheists have had their fill of intellectual elitism and degredation.
Not only does this have nothing to do with atheism/theism, but our opinion is explicitly asked for in the poll. Most people in the world that believe in evolution believe in a god.
Ok Frank, defend evolution from it's origin. From my study of it, you have to believe a process took place that would be similiar to taking the contents of a junkyard, mixing it all together, add some energy and have a fully functioning machine pop out.
Actually Jeff, that would be a more apt description of Creationism since it implies that there is a builder working with available parts. Just sayin....
There is one thing I always do before I get sucked into the ID/Evolution 'debate.' I ask the other person how old they think the Earth is. If they say 'a few thousand years old,' I find something more productive to do with my time.
@Jeff Allen: From your example it's fairly clear you don't really know what the theory of evolution says or how it works. If I were wondering how something worked, or what it does, I'd probably start with a google search, so that's what I'll do.
That one is a lot more in-depth, and it's very recent because I've never seen the terms "micro evolution" and "macro evolution" come up in non-creationist literature until now. So if you want to know about evolution, do some research, and check out those sites. For further reading there are books posted in this thread already.
@Mike: I read that article I believe also, and although Jeffrey did misrepresent what it said (if I'm thinking of the same article), I believe it was an op-ed piece from the Independent or the Examiner. I'm currently looking for it.
Chris, there has to be a starting point so what did the evolutionary process start with?
Frank, herein lies the problem with information gathering today. We rely way too much on google(which by the way has control over it's hit results), wikipedia(which is well known to lean left), and sites that we gravitate to that we reasonably believe will support our opinion.
I am a creationist and source mainly The Scriptures which as a historical document have manuscripts that date closer to it's writing than any other ancient readings, have withstood the test of time without change and remains the most printed, best-selling book of all time.
To simply discount a creationist as as uninformed, ignorant, or not "up with the times" is an easy way out of a difficult debate.
Well Chris, since this will release you to do something more productive with your time, I believe the Earth was created in 6 days. I do however allow for the fact that the Genesis account records that the sun and moon were created on the third day and since our concept of "day" is determined by those two celestial objects, days 1 and 2 could have been millions of years long. God exists outside the boundaries of time and space and thus is not subject to there limits. I would also point out that in believing in creation, the creation would have all the characteristics of age at the moment of existence. In other words, when God created a tree, it would have all the characteristics of a fully mature tree, when he created a rock, it would have all the known attributes of a rock that by our modern standards would be dated as millions of years old.
Now enjoy your "more productive" time.
Frank & Chris, Jeff Allen's junkyard illustration is entirely appropriate to the discussion. It extends beyond the scope of biological evolution to the origins of matter and energy.
Chris, it is somewhat of a misrepresentation to assert that creationism involves a "builder working with available parts." It involves a Creator who brought energy, matter and life into existence (Col. 1:16-17).
Sorry Pastor Bartz, but Jeff's analogy requires available parts. Creationism only requires an available God. Jeff's analogy also ignores the combined sciences of physics, chemistry and biology where every building block complements perfectly another and certain combinations create life.
I'm equally comfortable with the beliefs that those life giving combinations may be the work of a God or that they may be the work of random chemical reactions. It is with no hesitation though that I adhere to verifiable scientific fact. So when people who insist that their belief in magic be taken as fact I immediately turn away.
I'll never deny the existence of God. We cannot prove logically that God does not exist. In that same vein though, we cannot prove logically that dragons and unicorns do not exist.
It's no different than religious folks attempting to marginalize provable science Jeff. At least I recognize the possibility of God.
In fact, I would go as far as to say that I want nothing more than for God to exist and to be all of the things that the religion I was raised in says He is.
I do my best to live a moral life according to that religion. I have never denied God or Christ. I argue for science because I think it is not only possible, but probable that the human race has been wrong quite often over the course of our religious existence.
I also think that the best way for us to discover God and understand our purpose is to study the verifiable facts we are provided with. I think we do ourselves a disservice when we shape reality to fit our beliefs rather than shaping our beliefs to fit reality.
" I think we do ourselves a disservice when we shape reality to fit our beliefs rather than shaping our beliefs to fit reality. " I am not here to serve myself.
Jeff, I'm sorry that you can look at human religious history, particularly the last thousand or so years of it, and think we've reached the apex of our understanding.
That wasn't the article I read, thanks! Although it didn't really have anything to do with the thread at hand, since I never even mentioned god or lack of one.
Also, question Jeff (Allen): If the first two days weren't literal, why do the next 4 have to be? I don't really understand. The meaning of the word "day" changes from one verse to the next in the exact same context? And I forget how you folks explain how light from stars billions of light years is seen, could you remind me?
Can I answer?
question 1. Because the Sun and moon were made on the 3rd day it set the pace of how long a day is. That cannot be said of days 1 and 2.
question 2: God gave us eyes to see the light.
The star question reminds me of something I believe: God isn't a joker. He doesn't play practical jokes on the human race. He wouldn't create a universe and fix it in place with all kinds of laws of physics and clearly provable ways of how nature works and give us the mental power to piece that together and use that knowledge to create technology that makes our lives better. He wouldn't set the universe up with the clear intention that it appears that stars are millions of light years away and have them not really be millions of light years away, or that other creatures roamed the earth millions of years ago, but then just say, "hey, I made it up, it was really just 4,000 years ago," or that it takes millions of years to convert organic matter into oil, and try to then convince us otherwise.
It's the devil who tries to fool people, not God.
It makes no sense that we can figure out the speed of light, be able to know with absolute certainty that a light from a distant start takes x-number of years to reach earth, and then have that turn out simply to not be true, that it's all an illusion, a cosmic joke, if you will, that it really isn't happening that way.
Reconcile that with the Bible however you like, but you're not going to convince me God is a liar.
Frank,
The first two can be literal and all 6 days can be allegorical without comprimising complete faith in God's account of creation. Science without faith in a creator is, for lack of a better word, arrogant. It is inward focused (I must know, I must prove, I must be the master of all knowledge). Science along with faith in God is outward focused. In other words, priority one is service to God, priority two is service to others, and lastly if God chooses in His time to reveal the mysteries of the yet unexplained, then we will have our human nature to know satisfied. If He doesn't, then I will simply have to wait until eternity to discover it all and more. Until then, science(which is a creation of man, useful, but still something God exists outside of) remains secondary to faith.
I don't demean those who choose science without faith, but I do sense that there is a set up for the ultimate let down. What if in the end science comes up short of answers provable by human standards, then what are you left with? With faith in God and His governance of Physics, Biology, Anatomy, and all the other sciences, one will never be left unfulfilled in terms of who, what when, why, or how.
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. Isaiah 55:8
or maybe even better as the New Living Translation states it "My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts," says the LORD. "And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine."
And Chris, we are far from reaching our apex of understanding, in fact we have just scratched the surface of what an omniscient, omnipresent God has for us to know. And that is the exciting part of being human is that there is always more to know. As far as reaching the limits of understanding, to come to the apex of understanding would be to reach equality with God and that is something I do not seek nor desire. Having faith requires the creation to submit in humility to the creator and I gladly do so and trust that He has me in the hollow of His hand as a beloved heir to his Kingdom.
Michele: I don't think you understood the question. Light travels at a constant speed. A light-year is the distance light can travel in a year. A star a billion light years away takes a billion years for the light from it to get to earth.
Jeff: I don't count on science to answer deep questions on meaning or how I should conduct my life, I use it to find out about my world. "What if in the end science comes up short of answers provable by human standards, then what are you left with?" I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here, but if it's saying what if science can't prove something, then so be it. But the thing is that currently there is not much about our (natural) world that science knows it will never be able to find out about. So I'll cross that bridge when I get to it, but if I never find out exactly how quantum tunneling works or special relativity, I'm not going to have an existentialist crisis.
Faith led us to the dark ages, while science led us through the enlightenment and information age. I'm not saying that faith is a bad thing (I'm a religion minor), but faith while ignoring science and good sense certainly is.
Frank, I agree that faith while ignoring science and good sense is a bad thing and I think I supported that. Faith and science compliment one another while many put them at odds. Faith did not lead us to the dark ages. People with misguided intentions of their faith did. Science did not lead us through enlightenment, people using God's gift of intelligence and applying it with wisdom did. And by the way, if we can take all the computing power of the first room sized computers and put it into a chip smaller than my fingernail and yet people are starving, being persecuted, raped, murdered, swindled, cheated, and oppressed in every corner of the earth, how enlightened are we?
Jeff wrote: "If we can take all the computing power of the first room sized computers and put it into a chip smaller than my fingernail and yet people are starving, being persecuted, raped, murdered, swindled, cheated, and oppressed in every corner of the earth, how enlightened are we? "
I should have specified that blind faith led us to the dark ages. I wouldn't say that faith and science compliment each other, but I definitely don't think they have to be at odds with each other, unless you have faith in something that's wrong. For instance my faith that the earth is flat is probably at odds with science, and there's not a whole lot I can do to dance around that point.
And by science leading us through the enlightenment, I specifically meant the scientific method. You can call it whatever you like, but the enlightenment was a backlash against organized religion and the church. Give god the credit if you like, but it was a movement by people going against the teachings of the church.
285 votes! the lunatic christian taliban have brainwashed far too many batavians. next step for them - pack the school board with their cronies & forbid the teaching of science in batavia city schools. texas anyone? scary!
After viewing the poll
After viewing the poll results, my conclusion is: Batavia, New York 2010 = Dayton, Tennessee 1925.
Ray, explain please.
Ray, explain please.
Jeff, I believe Ray was
Jeff,
I believe Ray was referring to this: (stolen from Wikipedia)
The Scopes Trial—formally known as The State of Tennessee vs. Scopes and informally known as the Scopes Monkey Trial—was an American legal case in 1925 in which high school biology teacher John Scopes was accused of violating the state's Butler Act which made it unlawful to teach evolution.[1]
Scopes was found guilty, but the verdict was overturned on a technicality and he was never brought back to trial. The trial drew intense national publicity, as national reporters flocked to the small town of Dayton, to cover the big-name lawyers representing each side. William Jennings Bryan, three time presidential candidate for the Democrats, argued for the prosecution, while Clarence Darrow, the famed defense attorney, spoke for Scopes. The trial saw modernists, who said religion was consistent with evolution, against fundamentalists who said the word of God as revealed in the Bible trumped all human knowledge. The trial was thus both a religious or theological contest, and a trial on the veracity of modern science regarding the creation-evolution controversy....(Google it and read more, if you'd like)
Refreshing to see there are
Refreshing to see there are believers out there!
I think it was more
I think it was more permissable in 1925, before the internet and the information age. There's not really an excuse to be a creationist at this point, since you can do a brief google search to disprove every creationist claim ever made. I'm an undergrad and I can debunk them all based on a few semesters of biology and physics.
Or you can go to http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html and look at all of the answers with citations to peer reviewed sources.
Or you can get your science from a book written in the bronze age by nomads.
I was facinated by an article
I was facinated by an article that I recently read, written by an atheist, who chided his commrades for antagonism toward those who do not believe like they do. It appears that some respectable atheists have had their fill of intellectual elitism and degredation.
Not only does this have
Not only does this have nothing to do with atheism/theism, but our opinion is explicitly asked for in the poll. Most people in the world that believe in evolution believe in a god.
Ok Frank, defend evolution
Ok Frank, defend evolution from it's origin. From my study of it, you have to believe a process took place that would be similiar to taking the contents of a junkyard, mixing it all together, add some energy and have a fully functioning machine pop out.
Actually Jeff, that would be
Actually Jeff, that would be a more apt description of Creationism since it implies that there is a builder working with available parts. Just sayin....
To Jeff Bartz, do you have a
To Jeff Bartz, do you have a source for that article?
There is one thing I always
There is one thing I always do before I get sucked into the ID/Evolution 'debate.' I ask the other person how old they think the Earth is. If they say 'a few thousand years old,' I find something more productive to do with my time.
@Jeff Allen: From your
@Jeff Allen: From your example it's fairly clear you don't really know what the theory of evolution says or how it works. If I were wondering how something worked, or what it does, I'd probably start with a google search, so that's what I'll do.
The first hit I got from "How does evolution work" was: http://www.wisegeek.com/contest/how-does-evolution-work.htm
It's extremely basic and to the point, but may be too simplistic for our needs. The second hit is much better:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml
That one is a lot more in-depth, and it's very recent because I've never seen the terms "micro evolution" and "macro evolution" come up in non-creationist literature until now. So if you want to know about evolution, do some research, and check out those sites. For further reading there are books posted in this thread already.
@Mike: I read that article I believe also, and although Jeffrey did misrepresent what it said (if I'm thinking of the same article), I believe it was an op-ed piece from the Independent or the Examiner. I'm currently looking for it.
Chris, there has to be a
Chris, there has to be a starting point so what did the evolutionary process start with?
Frank, herein lies the problem with information gathering today. We rely way too much on google(which by the way has control over it's hit results), wikipedia(which is well known to lean left), and sites that we gravitate to that we reasonably believe will support our opinion.
I am a creationist and source mainly The Scriptures which as a historical document have manuscripts that date closer to it's writing than any other ancient readings, have withstood the test of time without change and remains the most printed, best-selling book of all time.
To simply discount a creationist as as uninformed, ignorant, or not "up with the times" is an easy way out of a difficult debate.
Antagonistic
Antagonistic Atheists:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Overcoming+antagonistic+atheism+to+recast…
"wikipedia(which is well
"wikipedia(which is well known to lean left)"
Uh?
I've been deeply enmeshed in the web since 1995 and that's the first time I ever heard that.
I've never seen anything that would betray any political bias in wikipedia.
To Jeff Allen: How old do
To Jeff Allen: How old do you think the Earth is?
Well Chris, since this will
Well Chris, since this will release you to do something more productive with your time, I believe the Earth was created in 6 days. I do however allow for the fact that the Genesis account records that the sun and moon were created on the third day and since our concept of "day" is determined by those two celestial objects, days 1 and 2 could have been millions of years long. God exists outside the boundaries of time and space and thus is not subject to there limits. I would also point out that in believing in creation, the creation would have all the characteristics of age at the moment of existence. In other words, when God created a tree, it would have all the characteristics of a fully mature tree, when he created a rock, it would have all the known attributes of a rock that by our modern standards would be dated as millions of years old.
Now enjoy your "more productive" time.
One more chance Jeff, do you
One more chance Jeff, do you believe that the fossil record provides us an accurate picture of geological history?
Frank & Chris, Jeff Allen's
Frank & Chris, Jeff Allen's junkyard illustration is entirely appropriate to the discussion. It extends beyond the scope of biological evolution to the origins of matter and energy.
Chris, it is somewhat of a misrepresentation to assert that creationism involves a "builder working with available parts." It involves a Creator who brought energy, matter and life into existence (Col. 1:16-17).
Sorry Pastor Bartz, but
Sorry Pastor Bartz, but Jeff's analogy requires available parts. Creationism only requires an available God. Jeff's analogy also ignores the combined sciences of physics, chemistry and biology where every building block complements perfectly another and certain combinations create life.
I'm equally comfortable with the beliefs that those life giving combinations may be the work of a God or that they may be the work of random chemical reactions. It is with no hesitation though that I adhere to verifiable scientific fact. So when people who insist that their belief in magic be taken as fact I immediately turn away.
I'll never deny the existence of God. We cannot prove logically that God does not exist. In that same vein though, we cannot prove logically that dragons and unicorns do not exist.
Chris, since you insist on
Chris, since you insist on marginalizing my beliefs as "magic" there is no reason to debate. Saul Alinsky would be proud.
It's no different than
It's no different than religious folks attempting to marginalize provable science Jeff. At least I recognize the possibility of God.
In fact, I would go as far as to say that I want nothing more than for God to exist and to be all of the things that the religion I was raised in says He is.
I do my best to live a moral life according to that religion. I have never denied God or Christ. I argue for science because I think it is not only possible, but probable that the human race has been wrong quite often over the course of our religious existence.
I also think that the best way for us to discover God and understand our purpose is to study the verifiable facts we are provided with. I think we do ourselves a disservice when we shape reality to fit our beliefs rather than shaping our beliefs to fit reality.
" I think we do ourselves a
" I think we do ourselves a disservice when we shape reality to fit our beliefs rather than shaping our beliefs to fit reality. " I am not here to serve myself.
Jeff, I'm sorry that you can
Jeff, I'm sorry that you can look at human religious history, particularly the last thousand or so years of it, and think we've reached the apex of our understanding.
That wasn't the article I
That wasn't the article I read, thanks! Although it didn't really have anything to do with the thread at hand, since I never even mentioned god or lack of one.
Also, question Jeff (Allen): If the first two days weren't literal, why do the next 4 have to be? I don't really understand. The meaning of the word "day" changes from one verse to the next in the exact same context? And I forget how you folks explain how light from stars billions of light years is seen, could you remind me?
Can I answer? question 1.
Can I answer?
question 1. Because the Sun and moon were made on the 3rd day it set the pace of how long a day is. That cannot be said of days 1 and 2.
question 2: God gave us eyes to see the light.
and the fossil record?
and the fossil record?
The star question reminds me
The star question reminds me of something I believe: God isn't a joker. He doesn't play practical jokes on the human race. He wouldn't create a universe and fix it in place with all kinds of laws of physics and clearly provable ways of how nature works and give us the mental power to piece that together and use that knowledge to create technology that makes our lives better. He wouldn't set the universe up with the clear intention that it appears that stars are millions of light years away and have them not really be millions of light years away, or that other creatures roamed the earth millions of years ago, but then just say, "hey, I made it up, it was really just 4,000 years ago," or that it takes millions of years to convert organic matter into oil, and try to then convince us otherwise.
It's the devil who tries to fool people, not God.
It makes no sense that we can figure out the speed of light, be able to know with absolute certainty that a light from a distant start takes x-number of years to reach earth, and then have that turn out simply to not be true, that it's all an illusion, a cosmic joke, if you will, that it really isn't happening that way.
Reconcile that with the Bible however you like, but you're not going to convince me God is a liar.
Frank, The first two can be
Frank,
The first two can be literal and all 6 days can be allegorical without comprimising complete faith in God's account of creation. Science without faith in a creator is, for lack of a better word, arrogant. It is inward focused (I must know, I must prove, I must be the master of all knowledge). Science along with faith in God is outward focused. In other words, priority one is service to God, priority two is service to others, and lastly if God chooses in His time to reveal the mysteries of the yet unexplained, then we will have our human nature to know satisfied. If He doesn't, then I will simply have to wait until eternity to discover it all and more. Until then, science(which is a creation of man, useful, but still something God exists outside of) remains secondary to faith.
I don't demean those who choose science without faith, but I do sense that there is a set up for the ultimate let down. What if in the end science comes up short of answers provable by human standards, then what are you left with? With faith in God and His governance of Physics, Biology, Anatomy, and all the other sciences, one will never be left unfulfilled in terms of who, what when, why, or how.
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. Isaiah 55:8
or maybe even better as the New Living Translation states it "My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts," says the LORD. "And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine."
And Chris, we are far from reaching our apex of understanding, in fact we have just scratched the surface of what an omniscient, omnipresent God has for us to know. And that is the exciting part of being human is that there is always more to know. As far as reaching the limits of understanding, to come to the apex of understanding would be to reach equality with God and that is something I do not seek nor desire. Having faith requires the creation to submit in humility to the creator and I gladly do so and trust that He has me in the hollow of His hand as a beloved heir to his Kingdom.
Michele: I don't think you
Michele: I don't think you understood the question. Light travels at a constant speed. A light-year is the distance light can travel in a year. A star a billion light years away takes a billion years for the light from it to get to earth.
Jeff: I don't count on science to answer deep questions on meaning or how I should conduct my life, I use it to find out about my world. "What if in the end science comes up short of answers provable by human standards, then what are you left with?" I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here, but if it's saying what if science can't prove something, then so be it. But the thing is that currently there is not much about our (natural) world that science knows it will never be able to find out about. So I'll cross that bridge when I get to it, but if I never find out exactly how quantum tunneling works or special relativity, I'm not going to have an existentialist crisis.
Faith led us to the dark ages, while science led us through the enlightenment and information age. I'm not saying that faith is a bad thing (I'm a religion minor), but faith while ignoring science and good sense certainly is.
Frank, I agree that faith
Frank, I agree that faith while ignoring science and good sense is a bad thing and I think I supported that. Faith and science compliment one another while many put them at odds. Faith did not lead us to the dark ages. People with misguided intentions of their faith did. Science did not lead us through enlightenment, people using God's gift of intelligence and applying it with wisdom did. And by the way, if we can take all the computing power of the first room sized computers and put it into a chip smaller than my fingernail and yet people are starving, being persecuted, raped, murdered, swindled, cheated, and oppressed in every corner of the earth, how enlightened are we?
Howard, I can't resist, but
Howard, I can't resist, but in all I know of the Bible, God definately has a sence of humor!
Jeff wrote: "If we can take
Jeff wrote: "If we can take all the computing power of the first room sized computers and put it into a chip smaller than my fingernail and yet people are starving, being persecuted, raped, murdered, swindled, cheated, and oppressed in every corner of the earth, how enlightened are we? "
Good point.
I should have specified that
I should have specified that blind faith led us to the dark ages. I wouldn't say that faith and science compliment each other, but I definitely don't think they have to be at odds with each other, unless you have faith in something that's wrong. For instance my faith that the earth is flat is probably at odds with science, and there's not a whole lot I can do to dance around that point.
And by science leading us through the enlightenment, I specifically meant the scientific method. You can call it whatever you like, but the enlightenment was a backlash against organized religion and the church. Give god the credit if you like, but it was a movement by people going against the teachings of the church.
Jeff: I am in awe of your
Jeff: I am in awe of your comments. Very elloquently written. Are you a pastor?
Grace Baptist Church He's
Grace Baptist Church
He's also an incredibly gifted artist.
Also a great father and role
Also a great father and role model.
Oh wait she was probably
Oh wait she was probably talking about Jeff Allen. Although those comments may (and likely are) true of him also. Except about being a pastor at GBC.
285 votes! the lunatic
285 votes! the lunatic christian taliban have brainwashed far too many batavians. next step for them - pack the school board with their cronies & forbid the teaching of science in batavia city schools. texas anyone? scary!