tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post4866339811913405795..comments2023-08-08T06:45:13.513-07:00Comments on Fish With Trish: This just in...Fish With Trishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04278929770287008838noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-39534372371765615462009-05-28T23:17:21.789-07:002009-05-28T23:17:21.789-07:00Thanks for posting this video, Trish. It always en...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. :)<br /><br />God bless you today!<br />KyleAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-29206266338805321382009-05-23T05:23:12.047-07:002009-05-23T05:23:12.047-07:00WEM said...God gave you the ability to reason. It ...WEM said...<I>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.</I><BR>au contraire my skeptic friend since we are instructed to “Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord:<br />though your sins are like scarlet,<br />they shall be as white as snow;<br />though they are red like crimson,<br />they shall become like wool." Isaiah 1:18 <BR>Also notice Nebuchadnezzar's confession in Daniel 4:36,37<BR>" At the same time my <I>reason</I> 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."<BR>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!bassicallymikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00559349653723448348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-59733624548455688582009-05-22T07:33:30.328-07:002009-05-22T07:33:30.328-07:00basicallymike wrote You broke the Law and Jesus pa...basicallymike wrote <I>You broke the Law and Jesus paid your fine</I>I broke no law. I gave no one the authority or permission to pay my fine for me. I reject claims to the contrary.<br /><br />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.Whatevermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14458601080799278850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-65335256724491251442009-05-21T22:59:11.077-07:002009-05-21T22:59:11.077-07:00Whatever
Here Here, well said. It would be nice i...Whatever<br /><br />Here Here, well said. It would be nice if you could get one message rather than the endless no true scotsman argumentsLogic Ladhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02431071053448843506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-21286368087848437462009-05-21T09:06:23.330-07:002009-05-21T09:06:23.330-07:00Heath the Blogless wrote some things in the Bible ...Heath the Blogless wrote <I>some things in the Bible don't need to be interpreted they read very plainly and their meaning is clear.</I><BR><BR>The problem, Heath, is that few people agree upon what those obvious things are.<br /><br />Jesus/God loves us? Check...<br />Humans are sinful? Check...<br />Murder is wrong?<br /><br />{pause}<br /><br />Love thy neighbor as you would love yourself?<br /><br />{pause}<br /><br />---<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />---<br /><br />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...<br /><br />Personally, I wish Christianity would spend more time getting its own house in order, rather than fixating the "the fallen world"Whatevermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14458601080799278850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-45315761363950349902009-05-21T08:13:49.808-07:002009-05-21T08:13:49.808-07:00Ok, not quite a Bible-quote, but it was close enou...Ok, not quite a Bible-quote, but it was close enough.<br /><br />;)ExPatMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08666078524214384329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-36228749890434936792009-05-20T21:14:52.276-07:002009-05-20T21:14:52.276-07:00WEM said...
I'm a conflicted individual...We know ...WEM said...<br /><I>I'm a conflicted individual...</I>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. <br />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.bassicallymikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00559349653723448348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-66060061044873014892009-05-20T17:39:55.498-07:002009-05-20T17:39:55.498-07:00Hi WhatEverMan
I tried to address this question (...Hi WhatEverMan<br /><br />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 <I>“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>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. <br /><br />As for the part about evangelism being a sin I addressed this in Trish's post on an atheist tracks with scripture.Heath The Bloglesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05338368746908190636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-67590781228597602222009-05-20T13:28:20.840-07:002009-05-20T13:28:20.840-07:00Don't worry, WEM, it's nothing that a swift Bible-...Don't worry, WEM, it's nothing that a swift Bible-Quote to the heart won't fix!ExPatMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08666078524214384329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-85492094152947431472009-05-20T11:53:24.043-07:002009-05-20T11:53:24.043-07:00Incidentally, my last question ("How are we to det...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. <br /><br />That is the only source of the conflict. It's not God, or the Bible - it's people.<br /><br />---<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I'm a conflicted individual...Whatevermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14458601080799278850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-73211773401485704682009-05-20T11:22:55.517-07:002009-05-20T11:22:55.517-07:00Hi Heath. You responded to me a while ago, and I'...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.<br /><br />You wrote <I>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),</I><BR><BR>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.<br /><br />---------<br /><br />You also wrote <I>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.</I>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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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".<br /><br />How are we to determine which interpretation is correct?Whatevermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14458601080799278850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-7268878010807881872009-05-18T16:37:00.000-07:002009-05-18T16:37:00.000-07:00Hi Logic Lad thanks for your response, I can see w...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.)<br /><br />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.)Heath The Bloglesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05338368746908190636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-27533682997257987002009-05-18T00:31:00.000-07:002009-05-18T00:31:00.000-07:00Heath
Concerning research into creationism, I hat...Heath<br /><br />Concerning research into creationism, I hate to sound dismissive but why research something that has no foundation in reality?<br />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?<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />'This term is never given an exact meaning in the Bible as to what a kind is'<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br />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'<br /><br />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? <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Your paragraph starting 'No I don’t think they should be sued'<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br />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<br /><br />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.Logic Ladhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02431071053448843506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-26151924840206955902009-05-17T22:56:00.000-07:002009-05-17T22:56:00.000-07:00Logic Lad Last point
You said
“Your quote yet aga...Logic Lad Last point<br /><br />You said<br />“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.”<br /><br />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?”<br />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.Heath The Bloglesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05338368746908190636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-70508731236966239322009-05-17T22:14:00.000-07:002009-05-17T22:14:00.000-07:00What ever man good question.
(That was slightly a...What ever man good question.<br /><br />(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.)<br /><br />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)<br /><br />Here is my take on Bible interpretation. <br />Many things in the Bible are obvious from a plain reading. There is not a great deal of interpretation needed. <br />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.<br />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. <br /><br />Hope this helpsHeath The Bloglesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05338368746908190636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-24630737676306351942009-05-17T20:00:00.000-07:002009-05-17T20:00:00.000-07:00Sorry, I should have said "that isn't merely a que...Sorry, I should have said "that isn't <B>merely</B> a question of preconception"Whatevermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14458601080799278850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-83150277395548023102009-05-17T19:38:00.000-07:002009-05-17T19:38:00.000-07:00Heath the Blogless wrote “Gods truth” as you put i...Heath the Blogless wrote <I>“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.</I><BR><BR>Assuming that your first sentence is true, I agree with your second. But I disagree with your third :)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />It *has* to involve more than reading the Bible. It's got to do with how you interpret it.<br /><br />Right?<br /><br />And that isn't an issue of preconception...Whatevermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14458601080799278850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-44008954161152091652009-05-17T18:08:00.000-07:002009-05-17T18:08:00.000-07:00Sorry should have been their not there.Sorry should have been their not there.Heath The Bloglesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05338368746908190636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-61811213840282238942009-05-17T18:06:00.000-07:002009-05-17T18:06:00.000-07:00Logic Lad
“So gods 'truth' is more true than mere...Logic Lad<br /><br />“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'”<br /><br />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)<br />“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.Heath The Bloglesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05338368746908190636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-71324140431690785742009-05-17T17:59:00.000-07:002009-05-17T17:59:00.000-07:00Logic Lad Next
“Natural selection is part of the m...Logic Lad Next<br />“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.”<br />See my previous answer about Speciation.<br />“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.”<br />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.<br />“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' <br /><br />Next <br /><br />“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.”<br />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.<br />Next<br />“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.<br />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.”<br />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?<br />Next<br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />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.Heath The Bloglesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05338368746908190636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-53861811892172154452009-05-17T17:24:00.000-07:002009-05-17T17:24:00.000-07:00Logic Lad next question
“I am not an evolutionary...Logic Lad next question<br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Heath The Bloglesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05338368746908190636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-66744639470415580072009-05-16T19:30:00.000-07:002009-05-16T19:30:00.000-07:00Hi again Logic lad to your next question.
“So you...Hi again Logic lad to your next question.<br /><br />“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?<br />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.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br />-------------------------------<br />(from Wikipedia)<br />A genus is<br />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<br />2. a taxonomic unit (a taxon), in that rank. In this case the plural is genera.<br /><br />The term comes from Latin genus "descent, family, type, gender"[1] (plurals: genera), cognate with Greek: γένος - genos, "race, stock, kin"[2].<br />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.<br />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.<br />-------------------------------<br /><br />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.<br />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.<br /><br />More later<br /><br />HeathHeath The Bloglesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05338368746908190636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-15617046996825354722009-05-15T19:11:00.000-07:002009-05-15T19:11:00.000-07:00I fully agree with what this youth did. I stand b...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. <br /><br />Blessings~seedsowerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15277720385908550490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-20616494164348068102009-05-15T18:23:00.000-07:002009-05-15T18:23:00.000-07:00Logic Lad
Thank you for your reply. I am glad to s...Logic Lad<br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br />So if you want have a look at the book I mentioned. <br />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.<br />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.<br /><br />Got to go now, more to follow.<br /><br />HeathHeath The Bloglesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05338368746908190636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3329408579460570583.post-28506356875229604322009-05-15T10:39:00.000-07:002009-05-15T10:39:00.000-07:00"There are a lot of teachers out there, doing stuf..."There are a lot of teachers out there, doing stuff like this"???<br /><br />Puhlease...<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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).<br /><br />Teaching critical thinking is one thing. Teaching opinion is quite another.Whatevermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14458601080799278850noreply@blogger.com