Fish With Trish: This just in...

Monday, May 11, 2009

This just in...

Good job young man.

42 comments:

Heath The Blogless said...: While I agree that what the teacher was doing was wrong.
As a Christian should we sue someone to get them to stop persecuting us or Christianity? It must be remembered that this man has an unregenerate soul and quiet clearly hates God. I fear all this law suit has done is further alienated many already lost people. It may seam like a win for Christianity but at the end of the day, I really think all it does is turn people away. I feel there may be better way to handle situations like this.

Matthew 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,; May 11, 2009 at 4:45 PM
The Murphy's said...: Heath,

I agree!

ryan; May 11, 2009 at 7:19 PM
Logic Lad said...: Not knowing all the details of the case it is hard to have an objective opinion, however would you guys be so supportive if it had been an athiest being told that their 'science goggles' prevent them from seeing the truth? as is often alluded to here. Or would we be seeing yet more screams of christian persecution in the class rooms? Not to mention the simple fact that he may not have been polite to say it, but he is correct, religious dogma prevents the furtherance of knowledge and truth, simply because if you are certain you already have the answer you stop asking the question.

question, if you beleive that the world is only 6000 years old and you attend a school where a teacher tells you that this theory is demonstrably wrong is he infringing your relgious rights. what about the rights of the rest of the class to be tought the truth?; May 12, 2009 at 12:32 AM
ExPatMatt said...: Hey, I can't access the video here, can anyone give me a brief synopsis?

I think I've got the basics but I don't want to jump to any conclusions.

Cheers,; May 12, 2009 at 8:07 AM
stranger.strange.land said...: @ Heath and Ryan.

I am remembering that Paul appealed to his legal rights as a Roman citizen when he was unjustly treated.

Acts 22:25-26
But when they stretched him out with thongs, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, "Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman and uncondemned?"
When the centurion heard this, he went to the commander and told him, saying, "What are you about to do? For this man is a Roman."
NASB

Of course Christians must stand by their convictions in the face of discrimination or persecution, but there is no virtue in waiving our legal rights as a fast track to "martyrdom." It doesn't help us or our fellow citizens, and it doesn't glorify God.

Craig B; May 12, 2009 at 8:11 AM
stranger.strange.land said...: @Logic Lad

What you said does have merit. From what I read recently in the newspaper's account of the case, the teacher had singled this student out for public ridicule. It wasn't just that the cirriculum being taught was contrary to the student's beliefs.

Craig B; May 12, 2009 at 8:33 AM
Heath The Blogless said...: Stranger.strange.land I see your point. The difference being Paul was detained by the commander of the guard he had no other option. He was using his rights as a Roman citizen to escape the situation he was in. In the law suit case it seems as though retribution and punishment against the offender is being sought. While this is not a clear cut case and I am sure opinions vary greatly, my opinion is that the lawsuit seeking damages is not the best way to handle the situation as a Christian. I say this knowing that I do not have all the information about the circumstances. While I am glad he won the case, my question is should have it become a court case in the first place.

Consider this, we cannot legislate people into the kingdom of God. We may be able to change the law so that people uphold Christian values. This will not make them Christians, and many may just be resentful about having there "rights" taken away from them and hate Christianity and God even more. I am not saying lay down and let people trample you. But if we fight the people we may lose there soul. These are just my thoughts on the mater. Feel free to disagree.; May 12, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Heath The Blogless said...: Logic Lad
I see what you are getting at. First let me point out that people chose to come here and you don't have to read what is said and you don't have to stay. So the analogy is you give is a totally different situation. "religious dogma prevents the furtherance of knowledge", a bit of a straw man argument. You would have to be a bit more specific about which "dogma" you are talking about. I think many people would disagree with you on this point. I would point out one of note Issac Newton who had a strong belief in God and wrote many manuscripts on God along with his scientific discoveries. My personal belief and experience is that a knowledge of God actually increases a quest for truth and Knowledge. To find out more about how God did things and how his world works so that we may better understand him.

To you question, "demonstrably wrong", This would need to be demonstrated. "rights of the rest of the class to be taught the truth", You are assuming the teacher has the truth, what if he is wrong? Very dogmatic don't you think?; May 12, 2009 at 4:56 PM
stranger.strange.land said...: Heath.

I understand. I think we are looking at two different aspects of Christians taking legal action. No, I wouldn't seek damages from the teacher either.

Craig; May 12, 2009 at 9:08 PM
Logic Lad said...: Heath

I am very aware that i have a freedom to come and go from this place so i agree the analogy is not exact, however I do it find it interesting that you question the slightly dubious analogy rather than answering the question about what would be your reaction if is had been a religious teacher berating an athiest pupil.

So you want a specific piece of dogma that prevents the furtherance of knowledge, the Creation myth. by stating that all that needs to be known is known then there is no need to continue to question, hence preventing the expansion of knowledge. this is only made worse when there are demonstrable falsehoods and contradictions in the myth and yet we are supposed to just accept it as 'Truth'

Where did I say that religious people cannot also be scientists? Humans are excellent at compartmentalizing and rationalizing, people are fully entitled to believe what they want. Religion can be an inspiration, what it can't be is a font of knowledge, you cannot add to the sum total of human understanding by rereading an ancient book.

you said 'My personal belief and experience is that a knowledge of God actually increases a quest for truth and Knowledge. To find out more about how God did things and how his world works so that we may better understand him.'

I understand inspiration, however by having decided on a conclusion before you start you are denying the basic building blocks of the scientific method. You cannot be open to go where the evidence takes you if you are mearly trying to fulfill a preconcieved concept. a question, if you could demonstrably proove that there was a god but it was Zeus, not the god of the bible. would you convert to zeus? would you deny your results? or would you hide the truth?

Creationism, my specific example, is demonstrably wrong, aside from the contradictions and illogicality of genisis you have the issue that the earth is far older than 6000 years. this is not a dogmatic belief it is a demonstrable fact.

Given what i have read about this story I think the teacher probably acted badly, it is never right for a teacher to belittle a student, however their job is to educate and if they have to tip toe around every irrational belief then they are never going to be able to teach anything real, the stuff with evidential support.

I never said that the teacher was correct in all of his lessons, but you will notice that no one seems to be disagreeing with the validity of his statements, just that they where inappropriate in the setting in which they where given, and i agree his use of language may well have been wrong for the class room.

If he had used less aggresive language then this would never have got off the ground, becuase while you may not like what he said can you actually proove what he says is false?; May 13, 2009 at 12:55 AM
Heath The Blogless said...: Logic Lad

There are so many point here I will just focus on a few

Your understanding of creationism is seriously misguided you said “all that needs to be known is known” I have never herd one creationist say this. It would be extremely arrogant of some one to even claim this. The basic premise of most creationists is God created everything in the beginning. How he did it we can not even comprehend. No creationist I now would say that they know how God did it. This is where scientific research comes in. All these wonderful things God created how do they work? How have they changed since God created them originally? No rational creationist would argue that things have stayed exactly the same since the beginning. We all bring presuppositions to our thinking, some the natural is all there is. Some God does exists so maybe he had something to do with this (A Christian, does not just ignorantly accept that God exists they would have actually experienced God, they would know him to some extent).

Scientific method from Wikipedia (plus a couple of comments from me)
1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe) (don’t discount any possibilities even those outside the natural, ie God)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data (The experiment cant actually be done with evolution all we can do is collect data)
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis (Don’t forget to included all possibilities)
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists) (Can’t be done with evolution.)

A quote from Isaac Newton
Atheism is so senseless & odious to mankind that it never had many professors. Can it be by accident that all birds beasts & men have their right side & left side alike shaped (except in their bowells) & just two eyes & no more on either side the face & just two ears on either side the head & a nose with two holes & no more between the eyes & one mouth under the nose & either two fore leggs or two wings or two arms on the sholders & two leggs on the hipps one on either side & no more? Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel & contrivance of an Author? Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom & the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside an hard transparent skin, & within transparent juyces with a crystalline Lens in the middle & a pupil before the Lens all of them so truly shaped & fitted for vision, that no Artist can mend them? Did blind chance know that there was light & what was its refraction & fit the eys of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These & such like considerations always have & ever will prevail with man kind to believe that there is a being who made all things & has all things in his power & who is therfore to be feared.

Romans 1:18-21
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.; May 13, 2009 at 5:52 PM
Heath The Blogless said...: Logic Lad

There are so many point here I will just focus on a few

Your understanding of creationism is seriously misguided you said “all that needs to be known is known” I have never herd one creationist say this. It would be extremely arrogant of some one to even claim this. The basic premise of most creationists is God created everything in the beginning. How he did it we can not even comprehend. No creationist I now would say that they know how God did it. This is where scientific research comes in. All these wonderful things God created how do they work? How have they changed since God created them originally? No rational creationist would argue that things have stayed exactly the same since the beginning. We all bring presuppositions to our thinking, some the natural is all there is. Some God does exists so maybe he had something to do with this (A Christian, does not just ignorantly accept that God exists they would have actually experienced God, they would know him to some extent).

Scientific method from Wikipedia (plus a couple of comments from me)
1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe) (don’t discount any possibilities even those outside the natural, ie God)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data (The experiment cant actually be done with evolution all we can do is collect data)
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis (Don’t forget to included all possibilities)
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists) (Can’t be done with evolution.)

A quote from Isaac Newton
Atheism is so senseless & odious to mankind that it never had many professors. Can it be by accident that all birds beasts & men have their right side & left side alike shaped (except in their bowells) & just two eyes & no more on either side the face & just two ears on either side the head & a nose with two holes & no more between the eyes & one mouth under the nose & either two fore leggs or two wings or two arms on the sholders & two leggs on the hipps one on either side & no more? Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel & contrivance of an Author? Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom & the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside an hard transparent skin, & within transparent juyces with a crystalline Lens in the middle & a pupil before the Lens all of them so truly shaped & fitted for vision, that no Artist can mend them? Did blind chance know that there was light & what was its refraction & fit the eys of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These & such like considerations always have & ever will prevail with man kind to believe that there is a being who made all things & has all things in his power & who is therfore to be feared.

Romans 1:18-21
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.; May 13, 2009 at 5:52 PM
Logic Lad said...: Heath

I hate to have to ask but do you actually read all of my responses or do you just look for the single lines out of context to take issue with?

It is the default statement 'god did it' that defies the need to continue looking for answers, one has been given that to question would be, in the eyes of the speaker, morally wrong so why keep searching for alternatives.

If god created all things then there is no need to know how he did it, by deffintion he would have capabilities and understanding beyond anything we could ever comprehend.

If you believe that creatures and plants have changed in the course of world history then you beleive in evolution. Evoloution does not deny that there may be a god, just that we are not in his image per se. And i am afraid there are plenty of 'rational creationists' who insist that certain things where created in the form that they curently have, humans would be the big example. Infact the whole creationism nonsense has to do with trying to shoehorn a creation mythin to reality by denying evidence.

Sorry to break it to you but many if not most christians are 'ignorantly accepting god' they haven't read the bible, they believe what ever spin their priest puts on things, they are sheep blindly following the 'shepard' tells you a lot that a congregation is often refered to as a flock. Now before you het all outraged i am not saying all christians are blind followers, but plenty are.

Thank you for the deffinition of the scientific method, you actually are making my point for me. Religious thinking means you are starting with a conclusion and then try to force evidence to fit the conclusion or just deny/ignore the evidence.

I know you won't beleive this but i am open to the concept of a deity, there is simply no evidence that can't be used to support a more simple and less problamatic solution.

Please stop claiming that evolution is untested and untestable, it has been seen in the lab, surely you are aware of the emergence of resistant bacteria. to reiterate a statement made only a few posts ago, 'just becuase you refuse to accept the evidence dosn;t mean it isn't true.'

The fact that Isaac Newton thought that atheism is foolish is utterly irrelevant, he was a physicist not a biologist and lived in an age where questioning the bible could get you imprisoned or killed. please stop making appeals to autohrity, it is a fallacious argument and utterly pointless unless the authority is genuine. If dawkins came out and stated that based on his extensive knowedge of evloutionary biology the biblical creation is true i would have to take more interest, his expertise in the correct field. As i have said before people can beleive what they like, just because they are smart in one field does not make them smart in any others.

Waving your bible about is not a compelling argument, why not just save yourself the time and not put in any more bible quotes when responding to my posts.

Now please answer the questions i posed in my previous posts

'if you believe that the world is only 6000 years old and you attend a school where a teacher tells you that this theory is demonstrably wrong is he infringing your relgious rights?'

'what would be your reaction if is had been a religious teacher berating an athiest pupil.'

'if you could demonstrably proove that there was a god but it was Zeus, not the god of the bible. would you convert to zeus? would you deny your results? or would you hide the truth? '

'If he had used less aggresive language then this would never have got off the ground, becuase while you may not like what he said can you actually proove what he says is false? '; May 14, 2009 at 1:01 AM
Heath The Blogless said...: Logic lad
Thanks for your reply I did read your entire message but obviously I have not explained my point of view adequately. You really should do some research into what creationist actually believe. You claim that I believe in evolution, Natural selection and variation within a genus yes. But transformation from one genus to another, no. This is a common misconception many proponents to creationism have.
Quote taken from creation.com . I think this is a good example of what creationists actually believe.
“one common fallacy brought up by evolutionists is that variation within a kind somehow proves particles-to-people evolution. The examples commonly cited, e.g. peppered moths and antibiotic resistance in bacteria, are indeed examples of natural selection. But this is not evolution. Evolution requires the generation of new information, while natural selection sorts and can remove information due to loss of genetic diversity. Natural selection can account for variations, but cannot account for the origin of bacteria or moths. With the moths, natural selection merely changed the ratios of black and peppered forms. Both types were already present in the population, so nothing new was produced. [Since this article was published, new evidence shows that all the moth pictures were staged, further undermining this ‘evidence’”
And
One of the most confusing aspects of the creation/evolution debate is the fact that biologists have two different definitions for the word evolution. Evolution may refer to the change in the genetic makeup of a population over time or to the idea that all life arose by natural processes. These two definitions are blurred together so that examples of the former are used as evidence for the latter. This bait-and-switch method of pushing molecules-to-man evolution was pioneered generations ago1 and has been so effective that today many biologists are not fully aware that this is going on. By Jean K. Lightner (same web site) He has a fascinating article on evolution in the laboratory, “Observations of ‘evolution’ point to an ingenious Designer”
Yes I do believe God was the initial cause of all things but his does not stop me from trying to understand how.
The reason I quote Newton on this issue is because I agree with him. And no I won’t stop using the 66 books of the bible. Would you stop using all the sources you get your information?
To your other questions not trying to avoid them just pushed for time.
'if you believe that the world is only 6000 years old and you attend a school where a teacher tells you that this theory is demonstrably wrong is he infringing your religious rights?'
No not if he could demonstrate that Gods word is demonstrably wrong.
'what would be your reaction if is had been a religious teacher berating an athiest pupil.'
Don’t know it depends what he was saying and how he was saying it, I might have words to him if it was not speaking in a way appropriate to the situation. As an example I had to have words with a friend of mine the other day because he got very angry with someone he was talking to God about. I said to him what he did was wrong and encouraged him to go apologize and seek forgiveness to the man, which he did.
'if you could demonstrably proove that there was a god but it was Zeus, not the god of the bible. would you convert to zeus? would you deny your results? or would you hide the truth? '

Yes, No ,No
'If he had used less aggresive language then this would never have got off the ground, becuase while you may not like what he said can you actually proove what he says is false? '
I don’t know everything he said but I would certainly try, but I doubt very much it would do much good because Mans problem is not with the facts, his problem is God and the Bible (Warning Bible verse coming) John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. John 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
I would have quoted Romans 1 again because it really speaks on this matter clearly but I think I have done that many times before. The reason I quote Newton on this issue is because I agree with him. And no I won’t stop using the 66 books of the bible. Would you stop using all the sources you get your information?; May 14, 2009 at 2:48 AM
Heath The Blogless said...: Logic lad and others. I put this link to a series Chuck Missler did on how we got the Bible it does a good job of explain why we can trust it. I would challenge anyone who refutes the Bile is divinely inspired to listen to it.

I hope Trish doesn't delete the link, but her blog her rules.

http://www.khouse.org/6640/BP084/; May 14, 2009 at 2:54 AM
Logic Lad said...: Heath

I was under the impression that creationist beleive that the earth was created in line with the bible, what other research is there to do? everything else i have seen on the subject is an attempt to validate the above position, not an attempt to start from first principals and follow to a logical conclusion, if you can recommend some where that i can see an argument for creationism that does not start with a conclusion of God did it please do.

So you beleive in variation due to inherited mutation, ok so do you accept the if a single species where to become geographical isolated in to a number of groups that the each population could develop and inherit different mutations?
If so would it then not be possible that over sufficent time of isolation these mutations would build to the point where the populations would no longer be able to produce viable offspring? hence we have a new species, hence classical evolution. As am aside please deffine Kind in a way that can be used to differantiate creatures.

I am not an evolutionary biologist but it occurs to me that if you accept the mutation can cause changes within a species then that mutation can either be a removal, and addition or a change in the sequeance of DNA, hence where does the concept of evolution not being able to increase the overall information carried in the DNA would seem to be false, like i said not my specialty but it does seem feasable.

Natural selection is part of the mechanism of evolution, indeed evolution would not happen with out it, even if it is for a simple selection in colour it is still evolution of the species, certain genes providing a reproductive advantage.

Your claimed bait as swith is interesting, the population evoloves by the changes in the indiviuals, your alleged bait and swithch is actually the same argument carried from the individual to the group level.

Molecules to man, well they have now created RNA, in the lab, so i think we are not far from demonstrating that inert chemical to living being is completly feasable, certainly more feasable than an incomprehsably complex being deciding on a whim to 'magic' a world and peoples into existance.

you said 'Yes I do believe God was the initial cause of all things but his does not stop me from trying to understand how'

Given what you beleive of the nature of god, how can you possibly understand anything of how or why he does anything? hence why are you bothering, by looking for answers all you can do is some up with purely natural solutions to the problems pushing god further and further back where he can get involved.

I have stated that i do not accept the bible as the inerant word of god, it is just a book written by men, given we are talking about concepts that only came up in the last few hundred years i don't see why a book thousands of years old is going to add anything.
I know people try very hard to make bible passages look like they are talking about things that we are only now discovering but i have yet to see one that is in any way convincing.

i asked ''if you believe that the world is only 6000 years old and you attend a school where a teacher tells you that this theory is demonstrably wrong is he infringing your religious rights?'

You can beleive what you like, but given the context of the start of this post do you think that someone teaching that the world is older than 6000 years should be sued or accused of religious intolereance, becuase that is the logical conclusion of the outcome of courtcase that started this post.

I asked ''what would be your reaction if is had been a religious teacher berating an athiest pupil.'
'
thankyou for your answer, as i hope is clear from my previous posts, disagreeing with someone is no reason to be chilidish or rude to them.

I asked 'if you could demonstrably proove that there was a god but it was Zeus, not the god of the bible. would you convert to zeus? would you deny your results? or would you hide the truth? '

It would appear we agree on something, in the presence of undeniable evidence i would have to accept the existence of a diety, wheter or not i worshipped him would be a different question.

you said 'Mans problem is not with the facts, his problem is God and the Bible '

So gods 'truth' is more true than mere actual fact, no wonder we fail to agree on so many things, i am constrained by having to accept facts while you seem happy to dismiss them if they do not agree with gods 'truth'

Your quote yet again alludes to the fact the men don;t follow god because they like being evil, you have failed to demonstrate how athiest, or people of other religions are less moral or more evil than christians, please do so without simply saying 'because the bible said so' i dont mind you using a bible quote as an example or as a spring board to conversation, i object to the belief that such a quote constitutes the whole argument.; May 15, 2009 at 1:19 AM
Logic Lad said...: Heath

I will try and listen to the link you put up, sounds interesting; May 15, 2009 at 1:19 AM
Whateverman said...: "There are a lot of teachers out there, doing stuff like this"???

Puhlease...

Just as I wouldn't want a teacher to use a public school classroom to advocate religious views, I wouldn't want "irreligious" views advocated either.

Public secular school is a place for education - unless the class involves discussing opinions or debating faith. Mr. Corbett was clearly out of line (advocating his opinions in the guise of teaching students).

Teaching critical thinking is one thing. Teaching opinion is quite another.; May 15, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Heath The Blogless said...: Logic Lad
Thank you for your reply. I am glad to see that you are asking good questions. Please let me answer them in small chunks I am not trying to avoid any of them, I am just limited in the time I can spend.

You first question is “what other research is there to do?” the best I can answer this is with an analogy. I myself have always had a very mechanical bent on things. When I was younger if I got a new toy I loved to pull it apart and see how it works. I still do this today to some extent. I was trying to work out how the designer did it. How he got things to move in a certain way, and in a very very small way how he thinks about mechanics. Now when it comes to God (the designer) I do the same thing, While I don’t physically pull animals apart, I let others do that and read about what they have found. In the same very very very small way learn how the designer thinks.

Next Question “can recommend some where that i can see an argument for creationism that does not start with a conclusion of God did it please do.” Again I will goto my own experience. I did not always think that God did it. In fact it was not all that long ago only about 6 years ago. I was very skeptical of those Christian nut jobs, I used to laugh at them and think they were stupid. I thought that science could explain how things happen. But in my case God first worked on my mind to prove to me that the bible was true, how he did this was bring people into my life who asked me tough questions. So I went looking for the answers. One resource that I used early on was a book call “The new evidence that demands a verdict” by Josh McDowell. A big thick text book about how we got the bible, the reliability of the text in it. And how we can it is from God. Now back then I hated reading so for me to take on such a big book was amazing in itself. The author’s story is interesting to, he a skeptic was challenged by some Christians to disprove the bible. He was very thorough in his research and in the end he convinced himself that the bible was true. Ironic hey. So to sum up I did not start with the conclusion that God did it, I was first convinced that there may be a God then that the Bible is true, then I went onto how did he do it. I hope this helps.
So if you want have a look at the book I mentioned.
The things I told you about did not happen overnight it took quite a bit of work on my part and a good deal of time.
If you have a question that you want answered more than the others please let me know and I will try to answer that one next.

Got to go now, more to follow.

Heath; May 15, 2009 at 6:23 PM
seedsower said...: I fully agree with what this youth did. I stand behind him fully and applaud him and his parents for pursuing this. I believe we need to stand up and defend our rights not only as citizens but Christians as well, and use the law to protect and defend us as needed. Our rights will be stripped away from us soon enough as it is. Use the law for our advantage while we can.

Blessings~; May 15, 2009 at 7:11 PM
Heath The Blogless said...: Hi again Logic lad to your next question.

“So you beleive in variation due to inherited mutation, ok so do you accept the if a single species where to become geographical isolated in to a number of groups that the each population could develop and inherit different mutations?
If so would it then not be possible that over sufficent time of isolation these mutations would build to the point where the populations would no longer be able to produce viable offspring? hence we have a new species, hence classical evolution. As am aside please deffine Kind in a way that can be used to differantiate creatures.”

This is a really good question. You defined creation of a new species classic evolution. I would say this is part of evolution. Most creationists would refer to this as speciation which they have no problem with. Eg dogs and wolves they are defined as different species yet they cannot interbreed and clearly from the same genus. You will find that most creationists will not reject every part of evolution, However they should be more definite in the terms they use. They will not put natural selection and speciation aside because it is evolution; it is only part of evolution. They will not say mutation doesn’t happen, but they will disagree with the fact that new information is being added to the genetic makeup. But rather information is being taken away. Maybe removing a dominate feature allowing a less dominant feature to come to the front.

The word Kind you will find that many creationists use this word because it is the word the Bible uses when God told Noah that he would bring animals to him to be on the ark. This term is never given an exact meaning in the Bible as to what a kind is. From my understanding the closest thing in a secular world view would be Genus.
-------------------------------
(from Wikipedia)
A genus is
1. a low-level taxonomic rank used in the classification of living and fossil organisms. Other well-known taxonomic ranks are domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, and species, with genus fitting between family and species. Or
2. a taxonomic unit (a taxon), in that rank. In this case the plural is genera.

The term comes from Latin genus "descent, family, type, gender"[1] (plurals: genera), cognate with Greek: γένος - genos, "race, stock, kin"[2].
Like for the other well-known taxonomic ranks, mentioned above, there is an immediately lower rank, indicated by the prefix sub-, in this case subgenus, plural subgenera. The most important taxonomic unit below the genus is the species, which is the basic rank.
The composition of each genus is determined by a taxonomist, but often there is no exact agreement, with different taxonomists each taking a different position. There are no hard rules that a taxonomist needs to follow in describing a genus, but see below for some rules of thumb.
-------------------------------

As far as I am aware as with the term genus there is no exact determination as to what particular animals fit within a Kind. But I could be wrong on this.
If you go to answers in genesis website and search for the article (“Species” and “kind”) you will find a more in-depth answer than I give. And better explained to I struggled on my wording for this answer and I hope I expressed my point of view the way I intended.

More later

Heath; May 16, 2009 at 7:30 PM
Heath The Blogless said...: Logic Lad next question

“I am not an evolutionary biologist but it occurs to me that if you accept the mutation can cause changes within a species then that mutation can either be a removal, and addition or a change in the sequeance of DNA, hence where does the concept of evolution not being able to increase the overall information carried in the DNA would seem to be false, like i said not my specialty but it does seem feasable.”

This is a much larger question than you may realise, it has all to do with Information theory. I will point you to an excellent resource to answer this question, It is a book called “In the Beginning Was Information”, by Dr. Werner Gitt. The retired Dr. Gitt was a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig) and head of the Department of Information Technology. So he is much more qualified to answer this question.

You can read his book free online at “answers in genesis”, just search for “In the Beginning Was Information” They even have a series of videos lectures if you can’t be bothered reading.; May 17, 2009 at 5:24 PM
Heath The Blogless said...: Logic Lad Next
“Natural selection is part of the mechanism of evolution, indeed evolution would not happen with out it, even if it is for a simple selection in colour it is still evolution of the species, certain genes providing a reproductive advantage.”
See my previous answer about Speciation.
“Molecules to man, well they have now created RNA, in the lab, so i think we are not far from demonstrating that inert chemical to living being is completly feasable, certainly more feasable than an incomprehsably complex being deciding on a whim to 'magic' a world and peoples into existance.”
Again I will point you to an article at answers in genesis search for “Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab” it deals specifically with this topic.
“you said 'Yes I do believe God was the initial cause of all things but his does not stop me from trying to understand how'

Next

“Given what you beleive of the nature of god, how can you possibly understand anything of how or why he does anything? hence why are you bothering, by looking for answers all you can do is some up with purely natural solutions to the problems pushing god further and further back where he can get involved.”
I disagree. While I can never understand him completely (Not even close) I can learn a small part about him. I can also marvel at what he has created by understanding it more.
Next
“I have stated that i do not accept the bible as the inerant word of god, it is just a book written by men, given we are talking about concepts that only came up in the last few hundred years i don't see why a book thousands of years old is going to add anything.
I know people try very hard to make bible passages look like they are talking about things that we are only now discovering but i have yet to see one that is in any way convincing.”
I don’t know why you think like this. I can only speculate, perhaps it is because you come with the preconception that the Bible does not come from God and at that the people therefore are not as evolved and therefore don’t have any real insight to offer. I can’t do anything to change your thinking on this so I hope you find something that will convince you. What would convince you?
Next

“You can beleive what you like, but given the context of the start of this post do you think that someone teaching that the world is older than 6000 years should be sued or accused of religious intolereance, becuase that is the logical conclusion of the outcome of courtcase that started this post.”

No I don’t think they should be sued, many may disagree with me on this, but you would have to take it up with them. From what I have read and seen about this it would not have been as much of an issue apart from the fact that the expression of out and out disdain that the teacher showed for the opposing view. I think it was more about attitude than disagreeing views. Respect is the word called for here. It was a school classroom here not the playground.; May 17, 2009 at 5:59 PM
Heath The Blogless said...: Logic Lad

“So gods 'truth' is more true than mere actual fact, no wonder we fail to agree on so many things, i am constrained by having to accept facts while you seem happy to dismiss them if they do not agree with gods 'truth'”

I can see that I have not explained this very well, I think it maybe our preconceived notions about what truth and fact are. (Just speculating)
“Gods truth” as you put it will never contradict fact. What will disagree will be the interpretation of the facts. This will come down to the persons preconceptions. Which will include there life experiences, education, and upbringing. We all have the same “facts”. But different preconceptions.; May 17, 2009 at 6:06 PM
Heath The Blogless said...: Sorry should have been their not there.; May 17, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Whateverman said...: Heath the Blogless wrote “Gods truth” as you put it will never contradict fact. What will disagree will be the interpretation of the facts. This will come down to the persons preconceptions.

Assuming that your first sentence is true, I agree with your second. But I disagree with your third :)

People disagree about facts for reasons more than preconceptions. Senses are subjective, as are emotions and experiences. Two different people witnessing the same event can disagree on what they saw based only on how they were raised as children (for example), or whether one needed glasses and the other didn't.

Assuming you agree with this, how does a Christian (or an atheist, for that matter) tell whether they have a handle on the truth? Remember that we're talking about people who think they're right, but aren't. How exactly do you determine whether you're right or wrong?

It *has* to involve more than reading the Bible. It's got to do with how you interpret it.

Right?

And that isn't an issue of preconception...; May 17, 2009 at 7:38 PM
Whateverman said...: Sorry, I should have said "that isn't merely a question of preconception"; May 17, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Heath The Blogless said...: What ever man good question.

(That was slightly annoying, I had a big answer I had been writing then you went and corrected yourself. Now I have to scrap most of it.)

I do agree with you on the example you give about people witnessing the same event. This is talking about an event though; I don’t see how it relates to how a text is interpreted. (ie you can go back and read it again)

Here is my take on Bible interpretation.
Many things in the Bible are obvious from a plain reading. There is not a great deal of interpretation needed.
Other things are not so obvious; this is where a bit of research is needed. You may need to go into things like; who it was addressing, customs of the day, etc, etc.
But the real question when it comes to Bible interpretation is what did the author intend, not what do I see it saying. As I stated before, much of the Bible is clear on what it says and you can just read it plainly. Its called hermeneutics. Remember what did the author intend.

Hope this helps; May 17, 2009 at 10:14 PM
Heath The Blogless said...: Logic Lad Last point

You said
“Your quote yet again alludes to the fact the men don;t follow god because they like being evil, you have failed to demonstrate how athiest, or people of other religions are less moral or more evil than christians, please do so without simply saying 'because the bible said so' i dont mind you using a bible quote as an example or as a spring board to conversation, i object to the belief that such a quote constitutes the whole argument.”

This is the type of question I like. The premise you set shows me somewhat how you view Christians. I don’t believe that Christians in and of themselves are less evil and more moral than any person of any other religion or atheist. They are just as depraved, immoral and sinful. They rebel against God just as everyone else does. A “true” Christian will not exalt himself above others. I will quote the appostel paul on this matter. Romans 7:24 “O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?”
This should be the cry of every Christian. The Bible screams of the depravity of man including Christians. Christians still struggle with every type of temptation; they are still prideful they are still struggle with lust. They are still out to please themselves. They still even rebel against God. The difference is, they hate the sin they use to love, they hate that they are so drawn to it still. But they struggle. This is what happens when you turn to God as lord and saviour. He changes your heart, you want to please him. You want to give your life for him. When you accept the fact that you have rebelled against God and that if you get the punishment you are deserving of. You start to realise that Jesus dying to take that punishment on himself is a great sacrifice. It is a wonderful gift to all those who would turn away from there sins and turn towards Christ for redemption. This does not mean they are no longer tempted and no longer stumble into sin, but there attitude is changed. There is that fight against wrong temptation and against sin. This is what it means to be Christian there is nothing coming from ourselves that makes us better than anyone else. It is God who cleanses us from our unrighteousness. So if we should boast we should boast in him and not ourselves. And the answer to the question “O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” is Jesus Christ! To him may all the Glory go.; May 17, 2009 at 10:56 PM
Logic Lad said...: Heath

Concerning research into creationism, I hate to sound dismissive but why research something that has no foundation in reality?
Before creationism you have to substantiate the bible and the existence of god, untill then why do we need to try and come up with a mechanism that allows for biblical creation? think of it another way, before you can debate the number of angels who can dance on a pin head you first have to demonstrate the existence of angels. I mean we could start discussions with sweeping statements like, assuming that the abrahimic god exists and inspired the writing of the bible, but then why bother having the debate?

Please give me an example of the questions that led to your convertion. if they convinced you perhaps they will have the same effect on me.

The book you recommend could be intersting but i suspect it contains all the same flawed arguments that we see everyday on the web, the fact that one man changed his mind is not proof of anything aside from mans ability to be convinced of things. I don't want to be dismissive of his on anyone else's conversion but it is hardly evidecence of anything. plenty of people have gone the other way, normally by simply reading the bible rather than taking on faith the interpretation given by their priest.

By your own statement ' I was first convinced that there may be a God then that the Bible is true, then I went onto how did he do it' you have it the wrong way round, you started with the conclusion and then tried to work out how it was done. i have no problem with trying to substantiate a theory but your language suggests that is not what you where doing.

Heath i am deeply confused, you sat you don;t beleive in evolution and then say that you believe in speciation? in broad terms speciation is evolution there is little else to say on the subject.

I think i defined mutation fairly clearly previously, it can result in the increase of information, then natural selection gets rid of the less able versions without the extra info. i am not sure where the idea that selection is always negative comes from, perhaps you can offer some insite.

'This term is never given an exact meaning in the Bible as to what a kind is'

Hence the problem, if you are going to use a word in a scientific discussion it needs to be clearly defined and understood otherwise it will onlt detract from the clarity of your argument. The word kind seems to get used because, it appears in the bible ( and this makes it special some how) and becuase the lack of defined meaning allows the introduction of ambiguity to the debate allowing some silly word play to take the place of actual dicsussion.

I am sorry to say that having read a number of articles on AIG i am less than impressed with the accuracy, honesty and rationality of the arguments presented there.

I will try to read the book you suggest, however when a quote from it is 'There is no useless or false information in the Bible, since God's Word is absolutely true:" ' then i start to wonder if there is a hint of bias in it.

You said 'While I can never understand him completely (Not even close) I can learn a small part about him. I can also marvel at what he has created by understanding it more'

But you didn't answer my point, if you keep finding rational explanations for things then you are going to have to push god into the remaining gaps, as these gaps get smaller where does god go then?

You seem to have totaly failed to address my point about the bible not adding anything to current scientific debate? please unserstand i don't turn to an book of alchemy to answer my chemistry questions, while some of the principals may be right it is incredibly likely that most of it will be wrong becuase the people who wrote it dodn't know any better. and those books where only written a few hundread years ago, in some cases. The bible may have relevant things to say about philosphy and human nature but it has very little of relevance to science.

What would convince me, some finding an origianl biblical scroll with a detailed description of a modern scientific principal or process in it, complete with diagrams. that would do it.

Your paragraph starting 'No I don’t think they should be sued'

again we find ourselves in agreement, schools should be teaching critical thought and analysis not how to brow beat someone you disagree with. There is no place in schools for bullying, particuarlay from the teachers.

however you do need to be careful when you start talking about respect, i respect you, you debate well and are open in your opinions, i don't however have much respect for the source of your arguments, if i did it would be difficult for me say the things i do. i think what we need to think about here is that i can be polite and ameable without and still disagree with you. teaching that creationism has no solid basis given the current evidence is not insulting to anyone, or it shouldn't be, it is a statement of in line with all the currently avaliable facts, deriding some one personally clearly is.

Heath, the bible states a number of things that a factually wrong. if it is the word of god, then god got it wrong, or he made the world one way and then said something different in the bible, he lied in other words. Even within the bible it's self the facts change from one book to the next, sometimes even within one book. your interpreation of facts can vary, i agree, but that does not change the fact it'self

example, a hurricane strikes a built up area (fact), my interpritaion, unlucky people getting in the way of a physics, a religios interpretation, sinners getting smitted. The facts however don;t change.; May 18, 2009 at 12:31 AM
Heath The Blogless said...: Hi Logic Lad thanks for your response, I can see we are going round and round in circles. So I won't go on to much. I did come to the conclusion that the bible was true and there is a God before I started down the part of how did he do it. Sorry If I did not make that clear. The book I suggested for you "The new evidence that demands a verdict" while it is written by one man gives a good understanding of how I came to this conclusion. Or you could even try more than a carpenter written by the same guy just a cut down version and a bit easier to read. (I haven't read all this one myself though as it seemed similar to the first book.)

I am interested though as to what parts in the Bible are factually wrong though I have seen many of these in the past, and have brought up a few myself but have always had a good explanation given.(Please don't put any about the age of the earth or creation because it is clear we disagree on this and it will just start the whole round and round thing again.); May 18, 2009 at 4:37 PM
Whateverman said...: Hi Heath. You responded to me a while ago, and I've found myself losing ground (re. unable to keep up with the number of conversations). So I apologize that it took so long for me to write this.

You wrote I do agree with you on the example you give about people witnessing the same event. This is talking about an event though; I don’t see how it relates to how a text is interpreted. (ie you can go back and read it again),

Reading and interpreting is just as subjective as experiencing an event. Just as easily as two people can disagree about the details of an event, the same two can disagree about what is meant by a few sentences in a book.

---------

You also wrote the real question when it comes to Bible interpretation is what did the author intend, not what do I see it saying. As I stated before, much of the Bible is clear on what it says and you can just read it plainly. Its called hermeneutics. Remember what did the author intend.Yup, I understand the concept of hermeneutics. Although I personally think this is an excellent method of interpretation, it conflicts directly with those who claim the Bible is the literal word of God.

Two different people, two different epistemologies. Which is correct? Not being a Biblical scholar, I can only point to where those methods conflict, and ask the individuals to help explain the differences.

Which brings me back to my original point here. Two different people read the same thing, and come to different conclusions about what it means. Both claim to have identified "truth".

How are we to determine which interpretation is correct?; May 20, 2009 at 11:22 AM
Whateverman said...: Incidentally, my last question ("How are we to determine which interpretation is correct?") is one of the reasons I've labeled Christian Evangelism as sinful. Claiming that you know your answer is correct and that everyone else's is wrong - and pointing to the same book they do to support that claim - is pride.

That is the only source of the conflict. It's not God, or the Bible - it's people.

---

Understand, I expect to take abuse for coming to a Christian Evangelist's blog and claim that the belief system is sinful by definition :) Part of me *does* actually believe this, but another part of me wants to apologize for being an ass.

I'm a conflicted individual...; May 20, 2009 at 11:53 AM
ExPatMatt said...: Don't worry, WEM, it's nothing that a swift Bible-Quote to the heart won't fix!; May 20, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Heath The Blogless said...: Hi WhatEverMan

I tried to address this question (Somewhere on one of the posts) but it looks like I have failed again, I agree that it is a challenge to interpret scripture, and yes the problem is with people, they are biased, and flawed. But as I said in that that comment I was talking about some things in the Bible don't need to be interpreted they read very plainly and their meaning is clear. It is when people don't like what they read, that they try to manipulate it to suit themselves. For example Matt 5:27-28 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.I struggled with this a great deal I tried to justify what I was doing as not lusting, My mind wanted this not to read the way it sounded. I knew I had a problem with it I loved looking at porn and other things. I didn't want to give up my sin. So I shaped God into someone would allow me do what I wanted. But in the end God changed my heart and now while I still have the desire to do these things, I hate it, so I don't do it.

As for the part about evangelism being a sin I addressed this in Trish's post on an atheist tracks with scripture.; May 20, 2009 at 5:39 PM
bassicallymike said...: WEM said...
I'm a conflicted individual...We know Man! We were all there at one point or another. You have God's law written upon your heart! And the more you say, the more you testify to the truthfulness of what God has revealed in His Word about your/our condition.
Please repent and put your faith and trust in Jesus as your Saviour while you have the breath to do it. It's this simple. You broke the Law and Jesus paid your fine.; May 20, 2009 at 9:14 PM
ExPatMatt said...: Ok, not quite a Bible-quote, but it was close enough.

;); May 21, 2009 at 8:13 AM
Whateverman said...: Heath the Blogless wrote some things in the Bible don't need to be interpreted they read very plainly and their meaning is clear.

The problem, Heath, is that few people agree upon what those obvious things are.

Jesus/God loves us? Check...
Humans are sinful? Check...
Murder is wrong?

{pause}

Love thy neighbor as you would love yourself?

{pause}

---

You would think the bottom two are "self-evident". And yet, plenty of Christians do not believe these things are absolute. Murder is bad, unless the victim is an abortionist, or perhaps a Muslim Terrorist. Loving thy neighbor is good, except when he/she is a homosexual.

Of course, all Christians aren't like this - but I submit to you there isn't much in the Bible that can be read "plainly". A quick trip to Ray Comfort's blog reveals that he comes up with interpretations that stagger the imagination - all from seemingly simple scriptural passages.

---

This is an example of the fallibility of Christians, rather than the Bible. But since these Christians *all* proclaim to have a handle on the truth...

Personally, I wish Christianity would spend more time getting its own house in order, rather than fixating the "the fallen world"; May 21, 2009 at 9:06 AM
Logic Lad said...: Whatever

Here Here, well said. It would be nice if you could get one message rather than the endless no true scotsman arguments; May 21, 2009 at 10:59 PM
Whateverman said...: basicallymike wrote You broke the Law and Jesus paid your fineI broke no law. I gave no one the authority or permission to pay my fine for me. I reject claims to the contrary.

God gave you the ability to reason. It makes no sense that he would require you to reject it in order to pull meaning from a collection of parables in a very old book.; May 22, 2009 at 7:33 AM
bassicallymike said...: WEM said...God gave you the ability to reason. It makes no sense that he would require you to reject it in order to pull meaning from a collection of parables in a very old book.
au contraire my skeptic friend since we are instructed to “Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord:
though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red like crimson,
they shall become like wool." Isaiah 1:18
Also notice Nebuchadnezzar's confession in Daniel 4:36,37
" At the same time my reason returned to me, and for the glory of my kingdom, my majesty and splendor returned to me. My counselors and my lords sought me, and I was established in my kingdom, and still more greatness was added to me. 37 Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and extol and honor the King of heaven, for all his works are right and his ways are just; and those who walk in pride he is able to humble."
I have seen you list the characteristics of God (even if in derision). Just imagine how weakly your appeal to autonomy will play out before a Holy Sovereign God. Just something for you to consider since you are only 99.9999% sure there is no God. Have a good weekend!; May 23, 2009 at 5:23 AM
Anonymous said...: Thanks for posting this video, Trish. It always encourages me to see videos like that; kind of a reaffirmation that I, as a Christian, still have rights. :)

God bless you today!
Kyle; May 28, 2009 at 11:17 PM