Alternative to Dembski's Theodicy?
by BilboI've been skimming through William Dembski's The End of Christianity. I was pleased to find out that he also attributes the design of natural evil to Satan. As he correctly points out, C. S. Lewis suggested this idea in Mere Christianity and The Problem of Pain. And I'm also pleased to see that he, too, thinks that predation and animal pain is evil, along with Lewis.
However, the question arises, why allow Satan to cause so much pain and suffering, especially long before humanity appears on the scene? If I understand Dembksi's answer from the little I've read, he suggests that the best explanation is that God has acted retroactively in Earth's history, foreseeing the Fall of Adam and Eve. In other words, the natural evil that has plagued Earth for hundreds of millions of years before we showed up is a retroactive consequence of our rebellion against God. Since God is not bound by time, He is able to act in the past, based on events that happen in the future. As punishment and as part of the redemptive process, God allows Satan to reek wreak havoc upon this planet, both before and after Adam and Eve's rebellion.
I think I buy the idea of God being able to act in the past based on future actions. But I find something unsatisfying about it. What right did Satan have to this planet, before we fell? I can understand his having a right to it after we fell, but not before. Perhaps he had a retroactive right to it. Perhaps God said to Satan, "Because 500 million years from now humans will listen to you instead of to me, you have the right to this planet now." I guess that would work.
But there might be an equally good alternative. In Lewis's fictional work, Out of the Silent Planet, each of the planets of our solar system is ruled by an Oyarsa (an angel), who has helped to create the planet, the life on it, and takes care of it. In Lewis's story, the Oyarsa on Earth is probably Satan, who may have been in charge of Earth before he rebelled against God. Perhaps he has a right to rule Earth because it was given to him before he rebelled. In The Silmarillion, J.R.R.Tolkien pursues the same sort of theme. God sings and the angels join in. One of them tries singing his own tune, which throws everything into disharmony. God starts another tune, which brings the disharmony into harmony. The rebellious angel then tries singing another tune, which is also in disharmony. Once again God starts another tune, which brings everything into harmony, again. Then God reveals to the angels that by their singing they have created Middle Earth, which has both good and evil in it.
Perhaps Lewis and Tolkien's fictional accounts reflect something that actually happened once. Perhaps before Satan rebelled he was given responsibility over Earth. And with his rebellion evil came to life on Earth.
If we adopt this alternate view, what then do we make of humanity's role? Could it be that their role was originally a redemptive one? Had they obeyed God and not fallen, would they have been given the authority to usurp Satan, and rule Earth in his place, restoring it to what God originally meant it to be? By not obeying God, did they subject all their descendants to Satan's power, until the One came who could finally live in perfect subjection to God, even unto death, and then rising from it, and thus free us all?
I'm not sure if this second view is better or more faithful to Scripture than Dembski's. But it might be worth thinking about.
October 11th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Hey Bilbo
I did not think Dembski's book would be available till November. I have been eagerly anticipating it. I will look for it today.
Since you brought it up I will offer my two cents.
As a Supralapsarian Calvinist I believe that the chief reason for everything in our universe is the Glory of God in Christ. This includes things like the fall of man and Satan and suffering and evil.
Like Dembski I see natural evil as being the result of the fall and I believe that reason God allowed the fall is so that he could manifest his Grace to us.
He is not responsible for these things in the immediate sense. It was we who fell after all he mearly gave us the opportunity. but they are absolutely necessary for him to accomplish his purposes.
If there were no evil then God’s Amazing Grace could never be expressed to us.
Unfallen creatures angels can never experience this kind of Grace that is why the angels long to look on it (1 Peter 1:12).
God want’s to celebrate and reveal it to as many creatures as possible.
The Father want’s to brag about the incredible sacrifice of the Son.
The Son want’s to brag about the amazing love of the Father for his people.
The Spirit want’s to implement this Gospel in all creation and change the world through it.
The Gospel is the reason for it all. That is the ultimate answer to all the why questions
quote:
Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God's grace, which was given me by the working of his power. To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things, so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord,
(Ephesians 3:7-11)
end quote:
It is the mark of a master designer to use what would seem to be at odds with the purpose of his creation to accomplish those very purposes.
Nothing shows the power and wisdom of God more than his turning what is vile and evil in the world to the greatest possible good.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 11, 2009 @ 10:54 am
October 11th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Bilbo,
Let me elaborate a little.
We can think of all the time before Christ as a prelude to us. What was going on during those billions of years was merely the necessary preparations. This includes the allowing of evil both natural and moral. Preparation was being made for the arrival of the children of Grace.
We Christians are the flower of all creation. The seed was planted at the big bang the plant has been growing ever sense for the most part it was invisible to the untrained eye but it was growing none the less.
The bloom began to open on the first Easter and it is still in the process of opening up as the Gospel expands.
Gardening is not always pretty. You must kill bugs and weeds and even severely prune the rose bush. But when the rose is revealed it is shown to be worth it. In fact somehow the difficulties add to the experience.
or look at it this way.
We Christians are the Children of God our conception happened in eternity past our implantation happened at the big bang. We have been growing ever since for the most part this has been invisible to the untrained eye but the baby was growing none the less.
The delivery began at Pentecost and continues to progress as the Gospel is preached.
Pregnancy is not always pleasant there is morning sickness and anxiety and terrible labor pains and blood. But when the Child is revealed it is shown to be worth it. In fact somehow the difficulties add to the value of the experience.
quote:
For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now………………
And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.
(Romans 8:19-22&28)
End of sermon
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 11, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
October 11th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Within a Yahwistic context:
Then why did Yahweh tell the Israelites to sacrifice animals? Are you saying this was an "evil" request? When Yahweh gave them quails to eat in addition to manna, was Yahweh being "evil"?
Also, there is absolutely no evidence that animals are conscious. If they are not conscious, then the whole question is moot.
This is only a valid question is animals are conscious, which nobody can demonstrate.
At any rate, sticking with a Hebrew paradigm, Yahweh creates ra ("natural evil", bad circumstances, calamities, punishments) but does not create zimma ("moral evil", hating your neighbor, cheating on your wife.) There really is no mystery if one sticks with what the Tanakh actually says.
Comment by kornbelt888 — October 11, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
October 11th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
It seems to me that there's a whole lot of manipulation of the Scriptural text going on in this type of thinking, in order to fit in billions of years of suffering before Adam and Eve's fall.
It seems to me that a straightforward reading of the text is that the earth/cosmos is roughly 6000 years old, and death/disease/predation did not exist prior to Adam's fall.
Anything beyond that is manipulating the text.
That's not to say that the manipulation is un-needed or incorrect in order to fit in with our "modern knowledge"; but the actual text doesn't allow for billions of years of "evil" without some substantial manipulation.
Call me naive, but it seems to me that the Y[oung]E[arth]C[reationist]/Flood position is worth consideration if you really want to honor the text of the Tanakh and of the New Testament writers (including Jesus, who affirmed the reality of Noah's Flood and of Adam's and Eve's being at "the beginning"). Such a thought is anathema to most of you, I'm sure, but it's either that or manipulate the text.
I think there's enough question surrounding the whole Old Earth paradigm that I for one don't find it compellingly convincing. Circumstantially convincing yes, but not compellingly so.
My two-cents.
Comment by kenter — October 11, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
October 11th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Hey Kenter
I disagree
I think that the whole YEC paradigm is a recent phenomena that is an attempt to justify the continuance of a seventh day Sabbath in the new covenant.
The most natural reading of the text would be that Genesis 1:2-31 is describing the preparation of the garden of Eden/promised land for Man. and the creation of the cosmos is described in Genesis 1:1.
Trying to reconcile the text with modern knowledge is what caused the problem in the first place. First we changed the meaning of “formless and void” from a description of a wilderness uninhabited by humans to something like "chaos" in order to reconcile scripture to Greek philosophy.
Then we changed "earth/land" from meaning a specific land like Egypt or the promised land to mean something like Globe or world in order to reconcile scripture to the expanded view of the age of discovery.
What we need to do is try to read the text like it’s original readers did not like a modern reader I recommend this for a start.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 11, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
October 11th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
I also affirm the reality of Noah's flood and of Adam and Eve at the beginning. these things are in the scripture what’s not there is talk of water canopies and drowning dinosaurs and flood geology and changing natural laws.
It’s important to separate what the Bible actually says and our commentary on the text.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 11, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
October 11th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
But what is the biblical basis for the theology of Bilbo, Dembski and Lewis?
On the “Satanic Design” thread I argued “that world that God created is wild or untamed, and that was God’s original intention from the beginning. I think we cross into dangerous territory when we begin arguing that what we judge as “natural evil” is the creation of Satan.”
I can find Biblical support for this view starting with some of the Hebrew words used in Genesis 1. Consider the following:
What good is a theology that is not Biblically based?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — October 11, 2009 @ 4:26 pm
October 11th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
It depends on what you mean by "recent". In 1654, Ussher set the day of Creation as the evening preceding October 23, 4004 BC. This was consistent with typical beliefs of the day and similar to other calculations done previously.
Comment by Zachriel — October 11, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
October 11th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Ever wonder why there are no dates from the early centuries of christianity or medieval Judaism ? Odd is it not.
The YEC of Answers in Genesis is not the same thing as the systematic calculations of biblical scholars like Ussher.
Although I disagree with his reading of the Genealogies I have no problem with Ussher’s method. Like many folks in his day He was attempting to glean information from the text itself. He merely misread the genologies.
Since we now know that the genealogies were not intended to be read in that way no one, not even the YEC would hold his date to be compleatly accurate. That is what happens with biblical scholarship it is self correcting given time when new evidence comes in.
This sort of thing is very different from AIG approach which is to attempt read the text and scientific evidence in a way that supports their pet doctrine.
This is not to knock AIG and company we all are subject to this tendency it’s human nature.
The trick is to be like Luther open to correction from the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 11, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
October 11th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Huh? The first day of the Jewish calendar is the creation of Adam and Eve, the sixth day of creation. This evening is the 24th of Tishrei, 5770.
Comment by Zachriel — October 11, 2009 @ 9:22 pm
October 11th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
zach:
I did a little reasearch and it turns out that there are a few attempted dates set during this time.
It's important to remember that that all these attempts begin with the creation of Adam not the creation of the world
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 11, 2009 @ 9:24 pm
October 11th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
You are proving my point Zach. Notice that time in this calendar is not reckoned from the creation of the world AKA Ussher but from the creation of Adam. I could accept this calendar at face value and still believe the earth was billions of years old.
According to the bible creation occurred before the first day (Genesis 1:1). The text nowhere speaks of “six days of creation”. That is your commentary.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 11, 2009 @ 9:55 pm
October 11th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
It is very clear from what he wrote in his autobiography and letters that Charles Darwin was motivated by a number of theological concerns when he developed his theory of descent with modification by means of natural selection.
Chief among his concerns was the suffering that he witnessed in the natural world.
"I cannot persuade myself,” he wrote in one letter, “that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars."
He continues this theme in his autobiography.
In other words, in the theodicy Darwin developed natural evil is explained away by natural selection + an absentee (or non-existent) Creator.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — October 11, 2009 @ 10:50 pm
October 12th, 2009 at 2:14 am
Like a lot if people I usually think of Carl Sagan as a rationalist and a skeptic. And though that may be true, it is also true that Sagan saw himself as being skeptical in a certain particular sort of way, which allowed him to be “religious” in a certain particular sort of way. He explains his thinking in a book published by his wife, Ann Druyan, on the tenth anniversary of his death entitled, The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God. The book is based on Sagan’s Gifford lectures. The Gifford lectures, which are given annually in Scotland, are lectures on the topic of natural theology.
By the way, it is considered to be a great honor to be invited to give a Gifford lecture. The list honored lecturers is a veritable who’s who in the history of modern science, philosophy and theology: William James, James Frazer, Henri Bergson, Alfred North Whitehead, John Dewey, Karl Barth, Niels Bohr, Michael Polanyi, Arnold Toynbee, Paul Tillich, Werner Heisenberg, Freeman Dyson, Anthony Flew, Alvin Plantinga, Roger Penrose to name a few.
According to Sagan,
Sagan then shows, and comments upon, several pictures of astronomical objects that invoke in him a sense of awe and wonder. As an amateur astronomer many of them are very familiar to me. Indeed, I personally share Sagan’s experience of awe and wonder.
However, Sagan then end his lecture in an odd way. After showing us what an awesome and wonderful world we live in he writes:
To me this seems to be totally contradictory. As long as the God of traditional religion doesn’t exist, the universe is a place of awe and wonder. But then He shows up and suddenly those wonderful thoughts and feelings disappear. The cup suddenly goes from almost overflowing to almost empty. In other words, the universe becomes a dreadful place.
My question also is why? Why would it, and does it, make any difference?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — October 12, 2009 @ 2:14 am
October 12th, 2009 at 7:16 am
fifth monarchy man writes:
Moses wrote:
Comment by kenter — October 12, 2009 @ 7:16 am
October 12th, 2009 at 8:15 am
It has nothing to do with my views. It is the view of people (Basil, Theophilus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Albertus Magnus, Peter Lombard, traditional Jews, most of the scholastics) for thousands of years that Creation happened thousands of years ago, not billions, took six days then God rested on the seventh. This view wasn't universal (e.g. Origen, Augustine), and many scholars interpreted Genesis liberally (some thought Creation was instantaneous, not days), but that doesn't mean that the "YEC paradigm is a recent phenomena."
Comment by Zachriel — October 12, 2009 @ 8:15 am
October 12th, 2009 at 8:19 am
Notice that the creation of the Heavens and Earth is part of the six days.
Comment by Zachriel — October 12, 2009 @ 8:19 am
October 12th, 2009 at 11:05 am
From JAD's Sagan quote:
I guess it never occurred to Sagan that God may actually be doing that. It may be one should show that one can handle immortality before God grants it.
As an example of how it can go badly: according to the Bible and tradition, God gave immortality and free will to one particular being, and that being tried to overthrow God soon afterward and has been causing trouble ever since.
Maybe one needs to start with an ugly lump of fragile coal to get a truly exquisite, indestructible diamond.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 12, 2009 @ 11:05 am
October 12th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Suboptimal design arguments are inherently theological. The suboptimal design alluded to by angryoldfatman is not intended to be permanent but rather the predecessor to a more perfect and eternal design.
Comment by Bradford — October 12, 2009 @ 11:16 am
October 12th, 2009 at 11:19 am
How is a day defined before an earth exists; before the sun exists?
Comment by Bradford — October 12, 2009 @ 11:19 am
October 12th, 2009 at 11:26 am
BTW, about the six days, the biggest problem with the literal interpretation is not translation, but with light, day, & night appearing several days before the sun, moon, and stars in the chronology.
It is also interesting that the Jewish/Hebrew calendar does not include those six days.
Edit: Nice coincidence there Bradford.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 12, 2009 @ 11:26 am
October 12th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Because when a rock falls on someone it's "unfortunate." But if we discover that someone pushed the rock over the edge in order to crush the person, it's "evil", and the evil-doer has "some 'splainin' to do, Lucy."
IMO, either the omnipotent god exists, or the all-loving one does. They both can't exist at the same time given the evidence. (I abandoned the Classical God years ago.)
Comment by kornbelt888 — October 12, 2009 @ 11:46 am
October 12th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Bradford wrote:
O come on, Bradford. I'm sure God had a pocket watch.
Comment by olegt — October 12, 2009 @ 11:48 am
October 12th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
No Mr. Green? I'm sure God has his own time frame reference. Does it correspond to 24 hours as we know it? Christian naysayers use literalism to debunk the same.
Comment by Bradford — October 12, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
October 12th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Yeah, Bradford, when in Rome, do as the Romans do. I was just pointing out that your objection was not all that well considered.
Astronauts orbiting the Earth can keep track of their time even though the 24-hour period has no physical significance to them. So if God wanted to convey how long it took him to create and populate the Earth, he'd have no problem converting his proper time to SI units.
Comment by olegt — October 12, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
October 12th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Olegt:
I'm sure he wouldn't. Nor would he find it obligatory to respond to each and every half-baked objection put forth by one of his creations.
Comment by Bradford — October 12, 2009 @ 1:08 pm
October 12th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Sure, Bradford, God may be unwilling to do the conversion. But that wasn't your original objection: you said one couldn't define a day without the Earth and the Sun. That's not really a problem: one can time events using, say, pulsars and once the Earth is spinning on its axis, convert the pulsar time into days. So yes, the creation could have lasted 6 days even though days did not start yet.
Comment by olegt — October 12, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
October 12th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
The astronauts' 24 hours would be different from ours and the Earth's.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 12, 2009 @ 1:17 pm
October 12th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
That's the beautiful thing. According to science, every observer has his/her/its own time frame reference.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 12, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
October 12th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
angryoldfatman wrote:
Straining at gnats, swallowing camels? The relativistic effects you are talking about are tiny, a fraction of a second over a year. The Bible surely does not pretend to be that accurate.
Comment by olegt — October 12, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
October 12th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
fifth monarchy man writes:
Just some minor nits:
Some of the mainstream YEC people (AIG, for example) suggest not using the canopy theory anymore, claiming that the science argues against it. Still, it was an hypothesis, worth considering at one time.
If dinosaurs existed at the time of the Flood, then the land-dwelling air-breathing varieties would have drowned in the flood just like all the other land-dwelling air-breathing critters. So drowning dinosaurs are just as likely to be in the Bible as drowning buffalo or drowning humans.
"Flood geology" is implied in the Bible, although not so named. 2 Peter 3:6 talks about the pre-Flood world being destroyed by a deluge; Psalm 104 speaks of mountains rising and valleys sinking (although there is question as to the wording here); Gen 9 implies a new ecology concerning seasons and rainbows. Granted, these things are not spelled out in the Bible, but they're at least hinted at.
"Changing natural laws"? The only changing natural laws I know of being mentioned by any mainstreamer is when Sin entered into the world, but Paul makes it pretty clear that he's on-board with this concept, that the whole world is now groaning because of this change into a corrupt state, and that it's looking forward to its redemption back to the way it was originally designed to be (Rom 8). So this is definitely mentioned in the Bible.
So really, the only substantial objection in your list here is to vapor canopies, which as mentioned, have already been rejected by mainstream YEC theology.
Bradford asks:
I'm actually kind of surprised at this question, as it's answered in the first book of the Bible quite clearly. From the very first day there was an alternation of light and day, called evening and morning. One alternation is defined as a "day". On the fourth day, astronomical bodies were created which thenceforth provided the light used during those alternations (previously, the light just "was"). Days 4 through 7 then were, by straightforward reading, normal solar periods; presumably days 1 through 3 were also normal solar periods, just without the "solar" source for the light, of approximately the same duration.
Furthermore, in the Exodus 20:11 passage, Moses speaks of the seventh day ("yom") to be observed every week as the Sabbath, and in the same breath says this is because everything was created in six yoms with God resting on the seventh. Unless Moses changes his definition mid-breath, without any indication of such, then he has just declared the creation week to be seven normal solar periods.
Yes, you can "work around" these things, but that was my point in my original post: "It seems to me that there's a whole lot of manipulation of the Scriptural text going on in this type of thinking…". Why manipulate the text? Why not just read it for what it is?
Comment by kenter — October 12, 2009 @ 1:24 pm
October 12th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I don’t understand what the difference between God’s omnipotence and our finite power to potentially micromanage the lives of the people we love. What I am saying is that we humans could substantially improve the safety of the people we love by preventing them from taking any unnecessary risks. I was personally confronted with a good example of this, a few years ago, while visiting my sister in South Carolina.
My niece who I hadn’t seen for five years had just gotten her drivers license. A few days after I got there she asked her mom (my sister) for the keys to the family car so that she could drive to the other side of Charleston and pick up a friend who was going to stay overnight.
“Okay,” said my sister casually.
I remember thinking to myself: ’you are not going to let her do that? It is a rainy night (actually there was only a light drizzle) and the roads are more slippery and the visibility poorer than usual. Do you know the statistics? Do you know what risks new immature inexperienced teenage drivers face? A night like this has got to make it even riskier. Why don’t you wait and let her start driving when she is a little bit older– like 32?’
My sister certainly had the power to say no, and keep my niece away from such a risk. Was it immoral or unloving for my sister to give her daughter this new opportunity, adventure and responsibility?
How is that any different from omnipotence? God certainly could certainly micromanage our lives better than my sister could manage the lives of her children. But God faces the same dilemma that we face. How do you micromanage the life of another free moral agent without denying that agent his or her freedom. Or, to put it another way can there be true love without the freedom to choose?
I remember from one of my college psychology classes learning that there is a difference between “mother love” and “smother love.” I think that most people understand that a highly controlling kind of love, no matter how well intentioned, isn’t really love at all. How would it be any different for God?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — October 12, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
October 12th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Pretty sloppy for a physics professor. Here was the actual comment:
I clearly believe you can define a day prior to the existence of the earth and sun but the relative time frame when converted might yield durations that differ from literal understandings.
Comment by Bradford — October 12, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
October 12th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Bradford wrote:
Bradford, to this observer it seemed like you questioned the possibility of defining a day without the Sun and Earth. Perhaps you meant something else, but it wasn't clear.
Now that you have come out strongly in favor of such a possibility but raised a question about potential difficulties associated with conversion of time durations, maybe you could clearly spell out what those difficulties might be? If you wish to bring up relativistic corrections, note my answer above.
Comment by olegt — October 12, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
October 12th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
The difficulty literalists on both sides have is the lack of data. Theoretical resolutions are indicated but how are conversions made?
Comment by Bradford — October 12, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
October 12th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Bradford,
Your answers mutate like a virus. You said
Can you provide any estimates showing that any significant difference might result? I did that above in the case of astronauts and the difference is tiny, so a day would still be a day and not half a day.
Comment by olegt — October 12, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
October 12th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
You're wearing your swamp lenses which distorts understanding.
the relative time frame when converted might yield durations that differ from literal understandings.
When God gives me the details I'll let you know. Attempting to debunk biblical passages through a facade of science exposes theological objections.
Comment by Bradford — October 12, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
October 12th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
So Bradford, is it fair to say that you have no idea how important the effect might be, but you wanted to mention it because the relative time frame* has gravitas?
*The expression is in fact meaningless.
Comment by olegt — October 12, 2009 @ 3:33 pm
October 12th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Olegt:
It highlights, for the benefit of scoffers, how silly six day objections are when you lack the basic conceptual framework needed to assess the unit of time (a day). Also at hand is the other wedge strategy i.e. using "science" as a tool against Christianity (but not that sacred secular concept diversity).
Comment by Bradford — October 12, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
October 12th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Interesting, Bradford. From your answer I take it that it's OK for creationists to bullshit about relativistic effects hampering a reliable determination of the creation time frame, but it's not OK for scientists to ask for details because that would be theological. All right, I get it.
Comment by olegt — October 12, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
October 12th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Olegt:
If your creation time frame is an estimate of the age of the universe help yourself to whatever tools you deem necessary to make that determination. If you believe that 24 hour stopwatches are relevant to assessing days in a pre-solar system era then that is your right. I know of nothing that necessiates a literal six day interpretive lens correlating to 6 24 hour periods at that point in time. In short this is not a scientific issue. Why would anyone pretend otherwise?
Comment by Bradford — October 12, 2009 @ 5:06 pm
October 12th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Bradford wrote:
Now we're talking!
Our solar system formed about 5 billion years ago in a relatively quiet neighborhood of the universe. Neither the initial formation of the Sun from a molecular gas cloud, nor the subsequent formation of the planets from the protoplanetary disk was a violent process from the relativistic standpoint: the spacetime remained Newtonian. In other words, you would be hard pressed to see any difference between clocks ticking in different parts of the solar system. For example, a clock on the sun and a clock on the Earth disagree by less than a minute per year.
This is not to say that an astronaut would have a fun time in the area! Nonetheless, neither the speeds of various objects approached the speed of light, nor the gravitational potential substantially affected the flow of time. So there is no reason to even mention time dilation in this regard.
Ordinary watches would do fine, provided they were shielded from collisions and did not fall into the Sun.
Comment by olegt — October 12, 2009 @ 5:24 pm
October 12th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
There is some long standing biblical scholarship to support the ideas that Satan corrupted the world before the Genesis 1. Where the Bible says that the world "was without form and void." Is translated from the Hebrew "tohu and bohu"
The Hebrew ‘tohu’ refers to a thing that has become worthless or a place of chaos as a result it is empty and abandoned. In Isaiah 24:10 ‘tohu’ is used to describe a deserted city. Jeremiah 4:23 uses these same words to describe what appears to be a reference to the event that took place which left the earth in an abandoned and empty state, “ I saw the earth and behold it was abandoned and empty and the heavens had no light.”
The Hebrew ‘bohu’ is found three times in the Old Testament and it means ‘void, empty or waste.’ Two of the three times that it is found it refers to this chaotic and desolate state of the earth, fore example Jeremiah 4:23 and plausibly Genesis 1:2.
Comment by Jehu — October 12, 2009 @ 5:53 pm
October 12th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Hey kenter,
I assure you that I am a old time fundamentalist I believe that the bible is infallible and inerrant. The Biggest coup that modern YEC pulled off is to convince folks that those who disagree with their interpretation are liberal despite the fact that its their view that is new.
I suggest you look into what the old evangelicals believed or better yet check this out to see where YEC came from
kenter quoting Moses
I completely affirm this verse.
notice it does not say Yahweh "created" these things in six days it says he "made" them. The Hebrew word is ‛âśâh. It means to prepare or put in order as in I made my bed this morning.
This is in contrast to bârâ' (create) which means "create" as in God created the heavens and earth.
Create and make are not the same thing and only God creates. It’s very important to read what the text actually says.
God’s world was not complete until he created man and placed him in the place he prepared he did that in seven literal days.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 12, 2009 @ 6:18 pm
October 12th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
No my objection is when we take our theories and make them equal with scripture. We all do this it’s human nature. A good way to tell if you are doing it is to see if you substitute words in the text.
As in
Please understand I have no problem in folks claiming that some dinosaurs perished in the flood as long as they affirm that Noah had two brontosauruses on the Ark.
I have no problem with claims that the flood left geologic evidence only with folks claiming that flood geology is some how different in kind than all other geology.
I'm not trying to pick a fight here I'm only asking you to let the text be the text.
peace
Do you see the difference?
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 12, 2009 @ 6:51 pm
October 12th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
This is commonly referred to the “gap theory,” for the alleged gap that existed between God’s ancient original creation and his reconstructed creation that occurred more recently over a period of six literal 24 hour days. However, the gap theory, which saw some popular support during the 19th century has been largely discredited by modern Biblical scholars. In the following article Hugh Ross explains why.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — October 12, 2009 @ 8:02 pm
October 12th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
olegt wrote:
So what's your point? Mine was that your joke missed the mark because of relativity, not that astronauts are hypothetical immortal creators.
I never said it did, but I think it's humorous that a physicist would forget about relativity. Can you tell us what time is like when the entire universe is smaller than our sun? Smaller than our moon? Smaller than a golfball?
I apologize if these questions are not religious enough for you. We can go back to talking about angels dancing on the heads of pins or meeting djinns in the desert if you like.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 12, 2009 @ 9:43 pm
October 12th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
angryoldfatman:
Comment by Bradford — October 12, 2009 @ 9:54 pm
October 12th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
olegt wrote:
I assume you're talking about me, since I was the first one to bring up relativity here.
Obviously you didn't get the memo.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 12, 2009 @ 9:54 pm
October 12th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
angryoldfatman wrote:
That doesn't help your argument, AOFM. Proper time is a positive definite quantity: it only moves forward. Relativistic effects were important when the universe was small, but adding that time period to time of the formation of the solar system will only increase the total proper time, not reduce it.
So in order to demonstrate that 6 days of creation make no sense whatsoever, I don't need to worry about the beginning of time. Formation of the solar system alone took millions of years and any clock that hung around the solar system back then would show the same time of formation with an accuracy of a few parts in a million. If you want to include the time prior to the formation of the solar system you will have to tack on a few billion years that had been quite uneventful and still rather nonrelativistic. Adding the time before then and the big bang would only further increase the total proper time.
See, being a physicist means not only remembering about relativity, but also knowing when to safely skip it. You, on the other hand, should stick to trolling. That seems to work out much better.
Comment by olegt — October 12, 2009 @ 11:38 pm
October 13th, 2009 at 12:25 am
Olegt:
Only literalists- biblical and non-biblical- interpret days as 24 hour periods. 24 hours is related to the earth's rotation and the night and day passages relate to the sun. But that's a fully functional solar system which even the days perspective does not allow at the outset. We're not looking at a science text so why even bother with critiques based on literal interpretations. The most obvious one (from my perspective) is that days is connected to a place not related to the celestial bodies in question. A believer would think that includes the possibility of a place outside our multi-verse… I mean universe. Olegt, are you so bored with real science that you need to make foreys into and analysis of OT passages?
Comment by Bradford — October 13, 2009 @ 12:25 am
October 13th, 2009 at 1:18 am
Easy. Freedom within limits and a environmental context that guarantees nobody ever gets injured. That's the kind of world I'd create if it were up to me. It's evident that we have freedom within limits now. But our environment allows people to suffer.
Will heaven be a place were suffering is possible in your view? If so, why not heaven now? Why an inferior world full of inferior people? Why not Heaven For All from the onset in a context without any possibility of injury? If God could do such a thing, surely God would do such a thing if is all power and all love. A perfect context full of happiness and no possibility of injury. Obviously he didn't do that, which is the best evidence that he cannot do that.
The all loving, and yet limited, God is the only reasonable choice given the evidence.
(sidebar, I have personal suspicions that this is all just a collossal virtual reality game for bored super-cosmic beings. Think Q on Star Trek. We're all a bunch of Qs, with temporary amnesia, playing a really sophisticated World of Warcraft type game. Human society is just the sort of things I would expect if that were the case. But I disgress.)
Comment by kornbelt888 — October 13, 2009 @ 1:18 am
October 13th, 2009 at 5:18 am
It would be really interesting to study that subject in more detail. How many dinosaur species are we talking about? AFAIK, some really huge, gigantic dinosaur fossils have been found in Argentina, both carnivores and herbivores.
Wouldn't we have to consider
1. The collection and transportation of the animals.
2. Collecting, transporting and storage of food.
3. Caging, having control over the animals during our voyage.
4. Taking care of waste.
The staggering number of animal species would have left huge amounts of waste every day, tons upon tons, every day and night. With most of the Ark's load below the Plimsoll line, the waste would have to be carried up above the line to be dumped, or pumped out. The small crew would have to work about 32 hours a day, without even coffee breaks.
A calculation of the amount of fodder required for the passengers might give some interesting numbers too. Bamboo for the Panda, Eukalyptus for the Koala and so on throughout the animal kingdom. Not to mention flesh for the carnivores. Refrigeration? They were herbivores before the flood you say? Even more refrigeration. Was technology available to maintain a sufferable climate?
I am only scratching at the surface, a little thought ought to reveal the plausibility of the whole story. Hint: It may be myth.
Comment by Satolep — October 13, 2009 @ 5:18 am
October 13th, 2009 at 7:19 am
Hey Satolep
or maybe you have misunderstood the text to say that the flood was a global event effecting all animals that ever existed when it is instead a story of the destruction of a particular special “land” and the gracious rescue of a chosen remnant of humanity and a small number of local animals effected by this disaster.
Have you ever seem animals congregate on high ground during a flood? It’s not unheard of to see herbivore and carnivore huddled together on the same small piece of drift wood
I am amazed at the utter lack of context these stories are given by some folks. Genesis and Exodus tell a cohesive story of mankind separated from God and the “land” and the return and restoration of this land that is promised if mankind will only obey the covenant with Yahweh.
Yet some treat it as a disjointed collection of isolated stories that are unrelated to books as a whole.
Satolep you have commited the same error as the YEC you have read the text to support you own pet theory instead of letting it speak for itself
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 13, 2009 @ 7:19 am
October 13th, 2009 at 7:30 am
Hey kornbelt:
Did you read my first response to Bilbo? With out total rebellion and death amazing grace would be impossible. As one who has experienced this grace let me assure you it’s worth it.
That is exactly what God did for the elect angels yet they long to look at our salvation. Why is that?
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 13, 2009 @ 7:30 am
October 13th, 2009 at 7:35 am
Bradford wrote:
Bradford, I have already explained a couple of times why this excuse fails. By your logic, Eratosthenes could not have measured the circumference of the Earth as 46,620 km because the kilometer did not exist as a unit of length at the time. Of course it didn't and his result was described as 252,000 stadia by Heron of Alexandria. Later historians and scientists argued over the conversion from stadia to meters, but no matter how you slice it, Eratosthenes's measurement was not off by more than 30%, an impressive feat at the time.
Suppose observers with clocks were present during the formation of the solar system. Depending on how they were positioned around the solar system and how fast they moved, their readings would differ very slightly from each other—by no more than a few parts in a billion because gravity of the sun is fairly weak and the speeds of matter in the solar system were not even close to the speed of light. So there was no problem whatsoever defining the amount of proper time that it took the solar system to form. And when the OT was written it would not be a problem to convert whatever time unit had been used to Earth days.
Why is that relevant, Bradford?
Comment by olegt — October 13, 2009 @ 7:35 am
October 13th, 2009 at 7:55 am
The problem is the exaggeration that the story means to include every scientifically-defined species on Earth that ever lived. But it is reasonable to suppose that a family escaping from a flood would take along a pair of various breeding stock and a few other animals. Noah's command would be to take two of every animal. Indeed, it's typical behavior among seafaring tribes when colonizing. And they would then replenish the Earth, not meaning the globe, but the land.
This is not meant to argue for a historical and pious Noah, just that it is not beyond the realm of possibility, given a reasonable interpretation.
Comment by Zachriel — October 13, 2009 @ 7:55 am
October 13th, 2009 at 7:58 am
My source says that several of the letters attributed to Paul, including Timothy’s, are ‘universally regarded as fakes.”
Be that as it may, what caught my eye was the mention of biblical evidence.
Wouldn’t we need a little more that the mere words of the Bible to call it ‘evidence’?
Wouldn’t it be more honest to admit that all we have are ancient tales and myths for which we there exist anything like evidence, not even the plausibility that the authors had access to any information that we have not?
I know that won’t be good for faith, but isn’t it about time we begin to accept the fact that there just isn’t any evidence there?
Comment by Satolep — October 13, 2009 @ 7:58 am
October 13th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Olegt:
Olegt, this is not a unit conversion problem. It's a data problem and worse than that the needed data is not discernable through methodologies we have available. It's not that you cannot come up with solar system ages. That is not in dispute.
Moses is generallly credited as the author of Genesis. To an unbeliever that settles this issue for noone living at that time could have produced plausible data relevant to solar system age. Those who think the writing is divinely inspired have an additional causal element to assess that is not part of your thinking process. If the exact unit of time were revealed by God the text would have conversion possibilites. That unit is presumed to be 24 hours by literalists. That presumption is not shared by all. But this is not analogous to Eratosthenes, a shadow and applied logic. There is no way to measure the days duration except by presumption that is refers to 24 hour periods.
Comment by Bradford — October 13, 2009 @ 9:29 am
October 13th, 2009 at 9:33 am
If this Paul is the apostle and the letters NT epistles then your source is a fraud.
Comment by Bradford — October 13, 2009 @ 9:33 am
October 13th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
But the kind of world that you and I live in is not up to you. You are not God, and God did not give you the ability to create a world of your choosing. My concern is to live life in this world, a world, for sure, with hardship and challenges but also world of purpose, meaning and hope. To live life successfully in this world means accepting the challenges that God has presented to us.
But, on the other hand, God did give us freedom of choice and we can use that freedom to make this world a better place not only for us but the other creatures that share this world with us.
How does your wishful thinking improve my life, or the life of anybody else?
The idea of heaven is actually a later development in Jewish and Christian theology. Read the book of Job. The closest that Job gets to the idea of an after life is the question: “If a man dies, will he live again?” So then, what is the book of Job really about? It is about a man confronted with severe suffering who is struggling to find the meaning in the midst of his suffering. It is a struggle between two choices: “curse God and die” or “though He slay me I will trust him.” Faith is not about the after life. Faith is about this world. What faith will I need in heaven where there is no suffering or challenges?
On the other hand, heaven is always presented in the Bible as a reward. How can it be a reward if it is not preceded by challenges?
Do you play games that involve risk and challenge? Are risk and challenge good things?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — October 13, 2009 @ 12:14 pm
October 13th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
John_A_Designer
I am familiar with the gap theory but that is not what I am talking about. I am just talking about the definition of "tohu and bohu" as evidence of corruption before Adam. Also, I think it is interesting in light of the paleontology of Schindewolf. Schindenwolf had a different view of the fossil record than Darwinists. According Schindenwolf, forms in the fossil record tend to become gargantuan and dysfunctional (think the saber tooth lion with its front teeth so large as to be of little or no use) and then extinct. This is contrasted with the Darwinist interpretation where forms become more and more functional.
Comment by Jehu — October 13, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
October 13th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
The nature of God is the issue, based on the evidence at hand.
"All powerful" and "all loving" are human ideas. Whatever the God is, of the Ultimate Reality is, may be beyond human ideas of this sort. I'm willing to live with that Universal Disqualifier. But if we're going to sit around the campfire and talk philosophy and theology, why then, we've got to keep it in the domain of what humans can comprehend. And "all powerful" + "all loving" contradict the evidence in the domain of human thought. Just sayin. K'bai.
Comment by kornbelt888 — October 13, 2009 @ 4:06 pm
October 13th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Can they be babies?
Comment by Daniel Smith — October 13, 2009 @ 8:03 pm
October 13th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
"Proper time" as defined by whom? By earth dwellers immersed in a 24 hours per day, 365 days per year system?
How do you know time is linear and not, say, circular?
How do you know that time only goes forward?
Could there be observers who are not bound by time but instead see it like a yardstick laid out on a table?
What do you really know about time?
Comment by Daniel Smith — October 13, 2009 @ 8:10 pm
October 13th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
How so?
Consider the following set of propositions. (Call it set A.)
(1)God is omnipotent.
(2)God is wholly good.
(3)Evil exists.
In his1974 book, God, Freedom and Evil, Alvin Plantinga asks what is explicitly or formally contradictory about this set?
Explicit contradictions such as, “the planet Mars is not a planet,” are pretty obvious. There is nothing explicitly contradictory about set A.
Plantinga gives another set of propositions, (set B) as an example of a formal contradiction.
(4) If all men are mortal, then Socrates is mortal.
(5) All men are mortal
(6) Socrates is not mortal.
We can use a law of logic, modus ponens (if p, then q; p; therefore q) to deduce
(7)Socrates is mortal.
Of course this contradicts (6)Socrates is not mortal.
Plantinga goes on to argue, using several other examples, that there isn’t any way to formally show that set A is contradictory. So your thinking when you claim that an “’all powerful’ + ‘all loving’ contradict the evidence in the domain of human thought” is at best implicit, at worst totally subjective.
However, Plantinga even has a good counter argument, IMO, for the implicit claims. If you're interested we can continue.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — October 13, 2009 @ 8:13 pm
October 13th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Perhaps the front-loaded evolutionary process had produced relatively few 'types' by the time of the flood.
Comment by Daniel Smith — October 13, 2009 @ 8:16 pm
October 13th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Evidence is evidence. Why wouldn't an ancient document be considered 'evidence'?
Comment by Daniel Smith — October 13, 2009 @ 8:18 pm
October 13th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Most evolutionists won't read Schindewolf because his anti-Darwinian hypothesis is so fully developed. "Basic Questions in Paleontology" is a dangerous book for the 'Darwinist' (by that I mean all those attached to modern synthesis). Schindewolf cites mountains of evidence based on decades of painstaking research. His case is devastating to the 'undirected evolutionary' mindset – so they avoid it like the plague. The nearest they will get is to read Stephen Jay Gould's foreword and consider Schindewolf's ideas refuted because Gould discounts them. I guess the argument from authority is always good enough so long as it backs up your worldview.
Comment by Daniel Smith — October 13, 2009 @ 8:34 pm
October 13th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Dan Smith.
Can you provide scriptural warrant for such a thing?
If not you might as well claim that Noah kept embryos in a Petri dish.
God is an amazing God and anything is possible
While such speculation might be fun in the end it’s just speculation and I would not build a doctrine on it.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 13, 2009 @ 9:00 pm
October 13th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
We would have to unpack those terms for the purposes of this discussion. You may disagree about what "good" means, but to me it means minimization of pain and maximization of pleasure of consciousness. What other definition could possibility exist that would interest me? And you're right, I'm not God and God may have other ideas about pleasure and pain. But if he does, he's not worthy of my time because he's not really All Good. Even in the Bible, the whole fundamental assumption is that pain is a bad thing, something to be avoided, and something God intends to ultimately deliver the Elect from.
Of course it's subjective. It involves my own consciousness, the only absolute criterion I have regarding good and evil. Pleasure good, suffering bad. That's basic. No other definition has meaning with regard to me and is unworthy of discussion.
If God *had* to use pain and suffering to acheive the Best Outcome, maximal pleasure and minimal pain, then he's not all powerful in the sense of being able to do anything logically conceivable. This, of course, is different than saying he doesn't have all power that exists. God can have all power that exists, but not be all powerful in the sense of being able to achieve any imagined goal without following a linear path. Apparently there are shortcuts that God is either unwilling (not all loving) or unable (not all powerful) to do.
Think of it this way. God has goals. If you are a Christian, I imagine in a million years you figure Jesus will have returned, the Heavenly kingdom setup, and the Elect living in bliss forever. God was either unwilling (not all loving) or unable (not all powerful) to shortcut right to the final goal without all the gyrations in between. Which was it?
Comment by kornbelt888 — October 13, 2009 @ 11:55 pm
October 14th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
No. Nor can I provide scriptural warrant for the idea that they were all adult animals.
Comment by Daniel Smith — October 14, 2009 @ 2:58 pm
October 14th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Well there is the observation that the animals would come to Noah. (Genesis 6:20) while not ruling out newborns it does make such a thing a little less likely don’t you agree?
So we have two interpretations one that is agnostic as to the age of the animals as long as they can come and one that requires the animals be babies something that is not any where mentioned in the text.
Keep in mind the baby theory also creates difficulties of it’s own. Where was the milk for the hippos and elephants stored for example?
If I grant (for the sake of argument) that both theories are Biblical which interpretation is more likely to be the correct IYO?
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 14, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
October 14th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Jumpin’ Jehosphat! Ya gotta have cohones as big as You-Know-Who to consider yourself the “flower of creation.”
Christians blame Satan for a lot–apparently just about everything. So I decided I should go directly to the source, to see what Satan had to say for himself
http://www.churchofsatan.com/
A lot of people choose their religion according to how it fits their lifestyle. E.g., I could never be Catholic or Muslim because I have arthritic knees.
And I thought that if I'm going to join a religion its gonna be Satanism, as most befitting my lifestyle. I have to admit it was rather boring. Looks like just another book-selling scam. (Who's got more books to sell–the Satanists or the Scientologists? LOL)
I mean the religious garb is cool, cooler than the Pope's, but I was expecting more along the lines of world domination + virigin sacrifices…
Very disappointing.
Years ago, Bilbo, I go involved in a discussion @ARN over heaven and hell and God's judgment. I found it astonishing that some people quite literally believe God is justified in torturing sinners for eternity.
On that basis I find discussions about theodicy a bit "academic," to say the least.
Does Dembski address that in his book?
Comment by Rock — October 14, 2009 @ 7:17 pm
October 14th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
I don't really care. It's all speculation anyway. On the one hand you've got the adults who create a mass problem, on the other you have the babies who have a milk problem.
Actually I'm going to go with my front-loaded theory mentioned a few posts back!
Comment by Daniel Smith — October 14, 2009 @ 7:17 pm
October 14th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
He's only giving them what they want.
People are free to choose God and what he offers at any time.
If you reject God, you reject all that he is and has to offer: love, kindness, peace, happiness, wisdom, etc.
Hell is just the absence of God. It will be a place full of hatred, anger, frustration, pain, etc.
If you don't want God, he won't force himself on you. How is he not justified if he gives you exactly what you want?
Comment by Daniel Smith — October 14, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
October 14th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Or we could allow the Hebrew word 'erets it's original meaning of “land” instead of forcing it to mean something like “globe” and we have no problem
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 14, 2009 @ 7:40 pm
October 14th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Rock wrote:
LaVey was a hack. He was essentially Satan's Dan Brown.
The Marquis de Sade wrote the definitive works in the subject, but… they're in 18th Century French. Not exactly my idea of a page-turner.
Crowley's and Blavatsky's stuff is more accessible, but it's still dense.
Perhaps you could just play as the Sith in the Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic games. A great deal of the fun, no real consequences, and with the bare minimum of stuffy philosophy.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 14, 2009 @ 7:59 pm
October 14th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
I found it astonishing that some people quite literally believe God is justified in torturing sinners for eternity.
Daniel Smith Says: He's only giving them what they want.
Now this is what I was really talking about… The literally nauseating moral depravity of Christianity.
“LaVey was a hack.”
You better believe it! Compared to Daniel Smith, La Vey is a cartoon character.
Comment by Rock — October 14, 2009 @ 8:29 pm
October 14th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Sorry to drop in so late, but I find it interesting that the two most influential proponents of ID have now publicly professed their acceptance of two of the most basic tenets of mainstream evolutionary biology:
Michael Behe has fully accepted descent with modification from common ancestors:
The Edge of Evolution, page 72
William Dembski has fully accepted that the evidence for an "old" universe (i.e. one that is billions of years old) is "overwhelming:
Uncommon Descent, http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/the-end-of-christianity-now-available-at-amazon-com/#comment-337257
This basically means that, at its core, ID theory agrees with everything in mainstream evolutionary theory except the idea that the variations upon which natural selection operates are essentially random. Which, as any good evolutionary biologist can tell you, isn't the case anyway. See http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/03/are-mechanisms-that-produce-phenotypic.html
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — October 14, 2009 @ 9:58 pm
October 14th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
I would not wish that on anyone but when I observe the depravity of mankind I find it nauseating to think that it would be possible for some very wicked people to escape scott free.
Comment by Bradford — October 14, 2009 @ 10:22 pm
October 15th, 2009 at 7:09 am
This has been the position of ID from the beginning nothing has changed. I find it amazing you did not know that
Now that you realize that ID is not in anyway contrary to the findings of science does that mean that you accept ID as just another position in the main stream? I some how doubt it.
That would mean that believers had a place at the table and science could not be used as a weapon to disprove God.
peace
PS the "you" in my statement is not meant to be personal.
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 15, 2009 @ 7:09 am
October 15th, 2009 at 7:26 am
You need to abandon your unbiblical view of Hell.
Hell is just the place where you pay for what you have done.
Hell is simply the place where the justice that is missing on earth will be metered out perfectly. Folks will get exactly what they deserve nothing more nothing less.
If you don't think that would be bad it's because you have a you’ve never truly stopped to think about the gravity of your sin. A small selfish act can have a ripple effect effecting the lives of countless others in ways we can’t foresee
When I think of what Ive done in my life both to God and to others. It scares the hell out of me.
Thank God Christ volunteered to take my punishment for me.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 15, 2009 @ 7:26 am
October 15th, 2009 at 11:00 am
fifth monarchy man wrote:
That may be the case here, but it is certainly not the case at Uncommon Descent, nor is it the case for the overwhelming majority of commentators with whom I have discussed this point.
The presence or absence of design or purpose (technically teleology) in nature is not a "finding", it is an inference. That is, the presence or absence of teleology cannot be directly observed, nor can it be indirectly observed (as is the case for, say, atoms).
Rather, the presence or absence of teleology can only be indirectly inferred on the basis of its necessity. If teleology (i.e. pre-existing or "foresighted" design) were necessary to bring about those objects and processes we observe in nature, then it would be necessary to infer their existence and operation. Hence Dr. Behe's arguments for "irredicible complexity" and Dr. Dembski's arguments for "complex specified information", both of which they assert are arguments for the necessary intervention of a supervening "designing force" in evolution. In brief, if "you can't get here from there" without teleology, then teleology becomes an inference that flows from your analysis.
This means that the inference to teleology is an inference by exclusion. Only when one has conclusively shown that the observable objects and processes in nature cannot have come about via non-teleological processes is it legitimate to infer teleology. To be as clear as possible: teleology is a post hoc inference, not a propter hoc assumption. This is why scientists (at least those who practice in the "natural" sciences, such as biology, chemistry, and physics) do not assume the existence of teleology. Rather, we attempt to explain those objects and processes we observe without resorting to post hoc inferences, such as teleology.
Believers have always had "a place at the table", as any even cursory examination of the history of the natural sciences would indicate. For example, two of the founders of the "modern evolutionary synthesis" (i.e. "neo-darwinism") were believers: R. A. Fisher was a devout and life-long Anglican and Theodosious Dobzhansky was a devout and life-long member of the eastern (i.e. Russian) church. However, neither of them used either their religious beliefs or some other, more general form of teleology in their science. They did so, not because of any desire to "disprove God", but because neither religious beliefs nor teleology are necessary to explain evolution.
Indeed, religious beliefs and teleology are completely irrelevant to scientific explanations, and are therefore not included in them. This is one of the basic tenets of ID, isn't it? The real challenge for ID is therefore to show conclusively, using empirical research, that "you can't get here from there" – to show that teleology is a necessary part of evolutionary theory. To date, no one has shown this, and so it is entirely legitimate to conclude that ID is not yet a science, nor will it ever be recognized as such until it rises to the level of empirically verified and logically necessary inference.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — October 15, 2009 @ 11:00 am
October 15th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Hey Allen,
I disagree, in the past I have argued at length that design inferences are hardwired in the human brain and as such are the default position.
The burden of poof is on those who would deny of commonsense ie hardwired position. That is how it has always been.
Because of common sense the burden of proof was on Galileo to show that the earth moved not on those who believed it was stantionary.
In the same way it is on those who would deny that X is designed.
Exactly!!!!! In order for them to be allowed to participate they had to act as if they were nonbelievers. That is what methodological naturalism is all about. Christians can play as long as they agree to act like atheists.
Sort of like African Americans who were allowed to participate in southern society as long as they acted like white folks.
Not as far as I’m concerned ID is about detecting design full stop, end of story.
It is very relevant whether or not your worldview renders you unwilling or unable to acknowledge design in nature.
Again just to be clear the real task is not to show any such thing. Anything is possible monkeys might fly out of my butt for example. The challenge in science is not to show that such a thing is impossible but to demonstrate that those who claim it happened have not demonstrated their case.
Mainstream science will continue to lose ground as long as they insist that it is up the rest of us to prove the equivalent of the impossibility of butt flying monkeys
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 15, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
October 15th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
What the heck?!
Comment by Zachriel — October 15, 2009 @ 6:12 pm
October 15th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Why do you consider it "moral depravity" to give someone exactly what they desire?
I noticed you snipped the rest of my response. Why?
Are you attempting to make it out to be something it's not?
Here's my entire response… feel free to critique it line by line:
Comment by Daniel Smith — October 15, 2009 @ 7:04 pm
October 15th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
I have an hypothesis that Stonehenge was the product of natural causes. No one has shown conclusively, using empirical research, that "you can't get here from there". Why is design then the accepted conclusion?
LOL!!!
This is precisely why debates like this are useless. As long as someone can "imagine a scenario", design will be overruled.
This is why I advocate that design science give up on the origins debate and move on to actually working from the premise of design.
Comment by Daniel Smith — October 15, 2009 @ 7:21 pm
October 15th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
you know Zach
you can be a Christian Scientist just don't get uppity
and claim that what you believe is true
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 15, 2009 @ 7:33 pm
October 15th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Off-topicActed like white folks?! Uncle Tom didn't act white. He acted subservient. Under Jim Crow, you didn't even look directly at a white person.
Comment by Zachriel — October 15, 2009 @ 7:38 pm
October 15th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Zach;
from the link
quote;
In the American racial context, Uncle Tom is a pejorative term for blacks that give up or hide their ethnic or gender outlooks, traits, and practices, in order to be accepted into the mainstream
end quote:
Now go back to sleep Zach I have no time for your games
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 15, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
October 15th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Yes, precisely. Since ID is no better than an imagined scenario, any other imagined scenario makes ID one of two equivalently valid possibilities. It annoys you that all it takes is a little imagination to trump ID, but that's because of the nature of the ID hypothesis, not because your opponents are being unreasonable.
That's why critics keep asking for positive evidence instead of the normal "it can't be that so it must be ID" kind of evidence.
Comment by don provan — October 15, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
October 15th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Off-topicThat use of the pejorative is by blacks, not whites.
Blacks were *not* allowed to act like white folks. They could participate in southern society only in a carefully subservient role.
Comment by Zachriel — October 15, 2009 @ 8:14 pm
October 15th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Daniel Smith,
We assume Stonehenge is designed because Stonehenge looks designed. Just as we assume the ball is red because it looks red. That this fact is not obvious to all is testimony to the noetic effects of the fall.
The burden of proof is always on those who would deny the ovious.
Imagine having to prove the impossibility of being mistaken before we are allowed to assume redness in the ball.
It is sad that somehow “science” has come to the place where what all of us know instinctively must be proven in order to be taken seriously instead of the other way round .
Newton would roll over in his grave.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 15, 2009 @ 8:20 pm
October 15th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Right, the whites liked it when blacks denied who they were. Just as Atheists in science like it when Christian scientists hide who they are.
We Christians get a little annoyed however.
Just like Christian scientists your point is?
Lord willing this will be my last comment on your latest attempt at derailment Zach
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 15, 2009 @ 8:31 pm
October 15th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
DP
sez who?
What basis do you have for this claim Captain Descartes?
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 15, 2009 @ 8:41 pm
October 15th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Off-topicThat's a more accurate statement in light of the history. Thank you.
Comment by Zachriel — October 15, 2009 @ 8:50 pm
October 15th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
It’s true that teleology is a metaphysical inference, but so is dysteleology (to use the term the Ernst Haekel coined.) And, I think that both sides should be free look at the evidence and argue for their respective interpretation and/or point of view. However, such interpretations are not strictly empirical interpretations, rather they are top-down interpretations that are based on presumptions and assumptions that are themselves unproven and perhaps are un-provable. If we limit natural science to things that can be studied empirically, then both teleology and dys-teleology fall outside those limits.
I do think that there are some minimal metaphysical assumptions that are necessary to do natural science. For example, I think that we need to assume that there really is real world out there, and that the laws of nature are for all intents and purposes universal, acting the same everywhere throughout the whole history of the universe. These are a couple but not all the assumptions, that we need to do science, at least if we extrapolate our study into the past or into the future.
However, I don’t see why it is necessary for a scientist to assume that the universe, or the natural processes we observe in the universe have no plan no purpose or no ultimate meaning. If that is your philosophical or theological interpretation, fine. Argue for it in that way. But, it is not, in itself, an empirical argument, and neither is it a position one needs to accept metaphysically or methodologically to do science.
In other words, dysteleology is a post hoc inference, not a propter hoc assumption. And, it is unnecessary to do science.
History is full of examples of scientists who metaphysically saw God in nature and yet have made major discoveries and contributions. My favorite is, Johannes Kepler, who said about his scientific work:
"I was merely thinking God's thoughts after him. Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it benefits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God."
Dr. Behe is a also asking a very legitimate scientific question: How did this thing (flagellum, blood clotting cascade etc.) evolve? So far science has not been able to provide the answer. Instead they have attacked Behe unmercifully and ostracized him. For what, his metaphysical beliefs? Is that fair? And why is there a double standard? Why is someone who says to an auditorium full of college students: “No ultimate foundations for ethics exist, no ultimate meaning in life exists, and free will is merely a human myth. These are all conclusions to which Darwin came quite clearly,” treated with respect? Can we really draw those kinds of conclusions scientifically from Darwin’s theory?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — October 15, 2009 @ 9:52 pm
October 16th, 2009 at 2:23 am
If you have positive evidence for ID, present it. No one has so far. The evidence is always dependent on an inability of anyone else to explain a result, not on any actual scenario that could be confirmed. ID proponents refuse to say anything specific at all about how ID actually accomplishes anything. (No, "front loading" isn't specific, it's just another way to say "did it".)
Comment by don provan — October 16, 2009 @ 2:23 am
October 16th, 2009 at 2:39 am
fifth monarchy man wrote:
and
and
I'm sure you're familiar with the Principle of First Use, allowing the first use of a Bible term to influence the base definition of that term.
In this case, the term "eretz" is first used in Genesis 1:1 (and all throughout the chapter) — "In beginning God created the heaven[s] and the eretz." As the chapter progresses, the sense of the term is definitely that of the globe or of the world.
When we move to the Flood text, the eretz which is flooded is the entire eretz (and the flood kills all air-breathers on the entire face of the entire eretz and prevents the dove from finding any dry land anywhere, Gen 7:21ff, 8:9, etc), and the flood covers the highest mountains (at least in the immediate area) to a depth of at least 20 feet – any flood that covers the mountains of Ararat for roughly half a year is not going to be in any sense a "local" flood.
And if it were a local flood, why spend 120 years building an ark and making preparations and "rescuing" animals? There would be absolutely no need for that; just spend 6 months migrating to the other side of the world, and BOOM, you're done. Sure, the local animals might drown, but so what? There's plenty more elsewhere on the planet.
And if it were a local flood, that makes God a liar, for He promised He would never send such a flood on the eretz again. We've had lots of local floods since then.
I believe your claim that eretz does not equate to world/globe/planet when discussing the Flood is simply faulty.
Comment by kenter — October 16, 2009 @ 2:39 am
October 16th, 2009 at 3:34 am
fifth monarchy man writes:
Yet Yahshua said:
So were Adam and Eve created at the beginning of the creation, as Yahshua claims, or were they created billions of years later, as claimed by those who weren't there?
fifth monarchy man continues:
I agree that there can be a distinction in the two terms "make" and "create". In fact, in Genesis 1, God "creates" three things –
1) the heaven and the earth (v1);
2) sea creatures and birds (v21); and
3) human life (v27)
– and from these three creations He apparently "makes" everything else.
However, sometimes the terms can be used interchangeably, as in verses 26-27, where God says He will "make" humans and then He "creates" them.
Even though Moses uses the term "make" in Exodus 20:11, he makes that term synonymous with "create" by referencing the Creation account which itself uses the term "create".
In other words, you're making a technical distinction which Moses does not make.
As I stated in my original post, "It seems to me that there's a whole lot of manipulation of the Scriptural text going on in this type of thinking, in order to fit in billions of years of suffering before Adam and Eve's fall."
Comment by kenter — October 16, 2009 @ 3:34 am
October 16th, 2009 at 3:51 am
fifth monarchy man writes:
Realizing that "brontosaurs" never existed (they were a mistaken conglomeration of the parts from two other different types of dinos), all the folks I've known of who claim that dinosaurs perished in the flood also claim that sufficient representative dinos were taken on board the ark, but that they just couldn't thrive in the post-Flood world, and eventually became extinct (or practically so).
I also know of no flood apologists that claim flood geology is different in kind than all other geology, but merely that different assumptions are used in the interpretation of the data.
fifth monarchy man continues:
False comparison. Keeping embryos in a Petri dish would require a level of technology presumably unavailable to Noah.
I doubt that the animals Noah took on-board were babies; however, I would expect them to be juveniles (young teenagers). Juveniles would tend to be stronger, healthier, have a longer, more successful reproductive life after the flood, eat less, produce less waste, take up less space, and be easier to handle.
If you were gonna terraform Mars and send animals to colonize the planet, would you send Grandma and Grandpa, Mom and Dad, or the virile teenagers old enough to survive but young enough to populate the colony?
I think Noah was smart enough to choose the teens.
OFF-TOPIC:
Q. What are dino bandages used for?
A. Dino-sores!
Q. What are bed-bugs in dinosaurs' beds called?
A. Dyno-mites!
Q. What do sea monsters each for lunch?
A. Fish and Ships.
(Meh, I've been hanging around an 8-year old. Pfft.)
Comment by kenter — October 16, 2009 @ 3:51 am
October 16th, 2009 at 7:02 am
DP
If you have positive evidence for your contention that “ID is no better than an imagined
Scenario“, present it. No one has so far.
Till you do you can expect to be left alone in the vat. I hope you do so soon it can be a lonely place in there.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 16, 2009 @ 7:02 am
October 16th, 2009 at 7:21 am
If you can't get there except through teleology then a teleological inference is imperative but you might be too exclusionary in your your application of a necessity standard. Direction is sufficient and bias toward outcomes of stochastic processes, which are inconsistent with probability assessments, can infer teleology. The difference can be subtle but important. A strict necessity paradigm requires a concurrent standard of demonstrating impossibility. Not only is that requirement too stringent, it may be impossible. But if observed outcomes deviate from expectations (but fall within physical possibilities) then biased outcomes are evident. If a biased stochastic process is not attributable to physical causality then a prima facia case is made for teleology.
The downside to this is a teleological predisposition toward expectations of non-teleology. We see this with some "gap" issues like the origin of life. If you cannot empirically derive non-teleological explanations based on finding suitable causes for mappings of codons to amino acids you maintain that necessity is implicated but not yet pinpointed. This is the flip side to exclusionary requirements. If some demand the demonstration of impossibility for teleology they likewise apply an always possible standard to expectations of non-teleology. That representation of a specific amino acid could not have been the causal result of conscious assignment even indirectly. It must have incidentally resulted from unexplained physical necessity coupled to a stochastic process. Conscious symbolism is unintentionally mimicked by a blind code maker.
Comment by Bradford — October 16, 2009 @ 7:21 am
October 16th, 2009 at 7:31 am
In the beginning does not mean on the 6th day of creation it means something like "at the start" (Jer 28:1,49:34 for example). Te billions of years were also "in the begining".
.
I really wish you would at least take a look at Sailhammer's work he covers this all here is a good summery
If you can read his take and still believe that the 6 days are about creating the world and not preparing the land we will just have to agree to disagree.
harvesting and storeing milk for an extended time would also require a level of technology presumably unavailable to Noah. That was my point.
I'll bet teenage dinos are still preety big and he had to have them on the Ark if your right.
This kind of difficulty is not why I doubt a global flood I would just hope that you would be consistent in your theories
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 16, 2009 @ 7:31 am
October 16th, 2009 at 7:33 am
That has been done time and time again.
All you can do is say "No it isn't" like some 5 year old.
And you think your whining is a refutation.
Amazing.
Comment by ID guy — October 16, 2009 @ 7:33 am
October 16th, 2009 at 7:39 am
That has been done.
However what has never been done is for someone to come along and show that undirected, non-goal oriented processes can account for all we observe.
IOW what is your empirical data that would support your position?
Or are you OK with holding ID to a different standard?
Comment by ID guy — October 16, 2009 @ 7:39 am
October 16th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
fifth monarchy man writes:
Yes, "'at the start' of creation God made them male and female".
If you draw a timeline, with one millimeter equal to a year, Adam and Eve would be roughly two meters to the left of Today, and then a fork with the "start" either 0.2 millimeters left of that, or with the "start" 15 thousand kilometers to the left of that. Which timeline-fork fits Yahshua's words the best?
I'm back once again to my original post: "It seems to me that a straightforward reading of the text is that the earth/cosmos is roughly 6000 years old, and death/disease/predation did not exist prior to Adam's fall. Anything beyond that is manipulating the text."
===
I'm reading the summary to which you linked. I'm less interested in the "historical" views of medieval scholars than of those who wrote the Bible. The impression I get from the Bible itself is that Genesis chapter 1 refers to the creation of the Cosmos, not just to the Garden after verse 2. Moses seems to affirm that in Ex 20:11, Jesus seems to affirm it in Mark 10, Paul seems to affirm it in Acts 17:24, Peter seems to affirm it in 2 Peter 3:5.
The writer of your link is putting billions of years somewhere prior to Genesis 1:2, but why? The text does not demand it. The simple reading of the text is that everything in the Cosmos was created over the course of 6 days just a few thousand years ago. Anything beyond that seems to me to be manipulating the text.
For example this author states that "heaven and earth" in Genesis 1:1 clearly refers to the Cosmos, but in the next breath says that "earth" in the next verse refers to a localized section of land, and gives an obscure usage of language as evidence. Perhaps he's right (and all the other excellent Hebrew scholars who translate this text, the which I concede he may equal or even surpass, are wrong), but it seems to me that it requires quite a bit of manipulation of the text to arrive at his conclusion.
He essentially tries to present the case that all but verse one of Genesis chapter one is about turning a desert into a garden. What, there wasn't suitable land elsewhere with water and fish and birds and cows and fruit trees and sunshine and stars for man to exist on the planet?
His arguments, while interesting, are not compelling; I sensed at one point that he had set up a straw-man which he then easily knocked down, making his case appear stronger than it is.
This manipulation surely is done in order to fit the Biblical text to the findings of "modern science" (or as he puts it, to find "no quarrel with the overwhelming scientific evidence that the earth is billions of years old"). As I said in my first post, "It seems to me that there's a whole lot of manipulation of the Scriptural text going on in this type of thinking, in order to fit in billions of years of suffering before Adam and Eve's fall."
His view requires that there was untold millions of years of death and disease and corruption in the world prior to Adam's sin. This renders meaningless the claim in Romans 8 that our current Cosmos suffers under a bondage to corruption to which it has has been unwillingly subjected. and from which it groans to be released.
The picture painted by the Bible, as I see it, is that in the beginning, all was "very good"; no death, no disease, no venemous reactions from rattlesnake bites; I suspect humans were in the same form which Jesus had in his post-resurrection body – touchable, with genitals and food-eating capabilities, but changeable in form and able to pass through solid walls and transport from one location to another like Samantha of "Bewitched"; I suspect perhaps we were clothed in light, like was Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration. There's a reason carnivory wasn't allowed in the beginning (either for humans or animals) – that would involve death. Then Adam sinned, and all that changed, and thorns and thistles "evolved" from the prior non-thorny ancestors, and lifespans dropped from immortal to 600-800 years (which further dropped to 60-80 after the effects of the Flood kicked in on our environment). Jesus purchased all this back, and now we're just waiting on the delivery truck to bring that redemption back to the way we were originally designed.
The picture I see you painting is that all along there has been death and disease and carnivorism, squeezed into a blank spot of silence just prior to Genesis 1:2. I think your picture is not Biblical, and it seems to me that the text is being manipulated to try to make it appear so.
Comment by kenter — October 16, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
October 16th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Mine, The Bible is a record of the important events in redemptive history the creation of man is at the very beginning of this history what happened before is merely prologue.
You are making the same mistake as Rock. He can’t believe that a small group of people in a remote corner of the universe who only came to exist a couple of thousand years ago are the reason for it all.
However according to the worldview of the bible what is universally important is what happened in this small area in this limited time frame and Adam came into the world at the beginning of this time and at the center of this space.
you need to prove this not just claim it show how I'm twisting words. I'm using the plain meaning of the words in context comparing scripture with scripture
?
Actually the age of the universe are not important at all to the view I’m promoting
It works whether the universe is 6 thousand or 60 billion years old. That’s why Christians before YEC had no problem with an old earth if that is where the evidence lead. In fact in the past a few Christians even held to no temporal beginning at all.
On the other hand your view demands a young earth if the earth is old then a Saturday Sabbath is not a universal command it’s as simple as that.
This is incorrect. According to the text the cosmos was created before the first day. There is no way to dispute this it is in black and white (Genesis 1:1).
Now you might argue that the creation happened in the second before dawn on that day but to do so is to add your opinion to what the text says. But why?
Think about it. Why does God drive Adam out of the garden?
Why did Cain fear being exiled from the land? Why was Moses commanded to build a special place for man to meet with God? Why was the temple important? Why is Zion so important in the psalms and prophets? Why does the new Jerusalem descend to earth in Revelation?
I’m surprised you don’t understand this stuff. A large part of the Bible will seem strangely provincial to you until it does.
Yes in the same way that
“as far as the east is from the west” means an infinite distance and “east” means east.
I can give you lots of other examples like this as well. This is the way that the Old Testament always communicates philosophical concepts like “cosmos“.
There you go. for you this is basically all about death before the fall correct? If that is the case you really need to understand the point that Dembski is making in his new book.
Death reaches back from Adam the same way life reaches back from Christ.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 16, 2009 @ 5:59 pm
October 16th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
This is simply incorrect Sailhamer is a conservative Hebrew scholar he is only interested proper reading of the text. The link itself presents a quote stating that he is not concerned with the age of the earth
Quote:
"we cannot say for certain when God created the world or how long he took to create it"
end quote
I understand you have been conditioned to believe that folks who disagree with you on this point are merely trying to squeeze the text to fit modern knowledge. I assure you this is not the case for me at least. I believe God could have created the earth last week if he chose to.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 16, 2009 @ 6:18 pm
October 16th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
No it annoys me that that's all you've got!
Comment by Daniel Smith — October 16, 2009 @ 8:44 pm
October 16th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
We have positive evidence that human designs are a lot more analogous to biological life than any non-biological product of nature is.
Comment by Daniel Smith — October 16, 2009 @ 8:49 pm
October 17th, 2009 at 5:08 am
Nonsense. All critics here give specific reasons why each claim of positive evidence is no such thing. On the other hand, ID proponents tend to say nothing more than "Is, too." The more daring demonstrate that they have no idea what positive evidence is.
Comment by don provan — October 17, 2009 @ 5:08 am
October 17th, 2009 at 5:14 am
It should annoy you that that's all I need.
It's not entirely clear to me you could make that case. But let's stipulate that you could. That information doesn't help at all to show that biological life was caused by design. After all, humans were certainly not present, so the relation to human design isn't really relevant.
Comment by don provan — October 17, 2009 @ 5:14 am
October 17th, 2009 at 9:29 am
DP
If you have postive evidence that that's all you need present it.
If not go back to the vat do not pass go do not collect $200.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 17, 2009 @ 9:29 am
October 17th, 2009 at 10:38 am
So, Bilbo, did Dembski have anything to say about us sinners, I mean people, judging God?
Since there’s so many Bible experts around here (Who’s a thunk it?!), what does God have to say about that?
Chapter and verse.
fifth monarchy man Says: You are making the same mistake as Rock…
I don’t believe it, but that doesn’t mean I “can’t” believe it, fmm.
Convince me. I mean, convert me. LOL
Btw, Didn’t Jesus say that the people in heaven can here the screams of the tortured souls in hell? When I heard that I decided hell was the place for me. I’d rather go to hell then live in heaven with people who turn a deaf ear on cries of torture victims. I couldn’t imagine a worse hell than heaven.
Comment by Rock — October 17, 2009 @ 10:38 am
October 17th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Hey Rock,
hows it going
I have absolutely zero interest in converting you. It’s not my job. God does that. I am only commissioned to tell you the good news and defend the truth if need be. I’ll be happy to do that
A quick word search reveals that “torture” is not found anywhere in the Bible and the word “tortured” is only found once in a reference to what non believers have done to the faithful in the past (Heb 11:38).
Nothing about torture in hell.
No mention of “screams” either for that mater.
So no Jesus does not say we will listen to the “screams of the tortured souls in hell” LOL
So you decide to reject being with God based on something that you heard that could be refuted with a 30 second word search.
Typical
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 17, 2009 @ 11:09 am
October 17th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
It's not in the NT. The account is a misrepresentation. What is a good description of sources that supply misleading information?
Comment by Bradford — October 17, 2009 @ 12:00 pm
October 17th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Do you have access to special information showing that human intelligence has properties that would not be shared by other conscious intelligence sources?
Comment by Bradford — October 17, 2009 @ 12:06 pm
October 17th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Quote:
Destruction is certain for those who argue with their Creator. Does a clay pot ever argue with its maker? Does the clay dispute with the one who shapes it, saying, `Stop, you are doing it wrong!' Does the pot exclaim, `How clumsy can you be!'
How terrible it would be if a newborn baby said to its father and mother, `Why was I born? Why did you make me this way?' "
This is what the LORD, the Creator and Holy One of Israel, says: "Do you question what I do? Do you give me orders about the work of my hands?
(Isa 45:9-12 NLT)
And
But, my friend, I ask, "Who do you think you are to question God? Does the clay have the right to ask the potter why he shaped it the way he did? Doesn't a potter have the right to make a fancy bowl and a plain bowl out of the same lump of clay?" God wanted to show his anger and reveal his power against everyone who deserved to be destroyed. But instead, he patiently put up with them. He did this by showing how glorious he is when he has pity on the people he has chosen to share in his glory.
(Romans 9:20-23 CEV)
and
No wisdom, no understanding, no counsel can avail against the LORD.
(Proverbs 21:30)
End quote
Also see the whole book of Job especially chapter 40 and following.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 17, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
October 17th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
What is a good description of sources that supply misleading information? Comment by Bradford — October 17, 2009 @ 12:00 pm
Christians? LOL
You think I just make this stuff up? I don’t have the morbid imagination for it. Christians told me, Bradford.
Btw, fmm, Job is my favorite book of the Bible. It may be the oldest book in the Bible (Job sometimes thought to be a contemporary of Abraham), but it was the last book added to the Jewish canon, and not w/o controversy.
One reason why it was such a controversial inclusion was because God does not deign to explain himself or justify himself to Job (man). In that sense God is “beyond good and evil,” at least the human conception of good and evil.
Maybe, "morally" speaking, God is a bit more complicated than traditional theology suggests…
Comment by Rock — October 17, 2009 @ 2:11 pm
October 17th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Comment by fifth monarchy man —So you decide to reject being with God based on something that you heard that could be refuted with a 30 second word search.
It took me <30secs to find this: Luke 16:19-31
Typical
Comment by Rock — October 17, 2009 @ 2:32 pm
October 17th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Rock:
No. I think you're sincere.
OK. A reminder though that experts in various fields- economists, legal experts, high ranking public officials and even hallowed scientists are on record as making signifcant errors. I pointed out that the statement cannot be found in the NT. Experience has shown that when I make these types of declarations and they are inaccurate, at least one commenter will point it out by citing the relevant passage. I predict this will not happen.
I think there is another take on this. God is an omniscient creator whose capabilities far exceed the mental grasp of his interrogators. But I suspect the core reason can be found by examining the interrogators. What are their motives? Genuine moral concerns?
I would agree.
Comment by Bradford — October 17, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
October 17th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
hey Rock,
So you read a parable that does not mention hell or heaven or torture or screaming souls
And you some how glean that
Quote:
Jesus says ”that the people in heaven can here the screams of the tortured souls in hell?”
End quote:
Typical
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 17, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
October 17th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
This is based on how this all plays out in your mind – not in reality – thus the "imagination" part.
This argument is among the lamest the non-teleological mindset has to offer. "No analogies to human designs are relevant because we know humans weren't around then". I find the hypocrisy amazing here. If we discovered something analogous to human design on another planet we'd assume A) that it was designed and B) that something 'like a human' was responsible. If we find something analogous to human designs here on this planet however, we can't assume A or B because "humans were certainly not present"? I've got news for you don, humans wouldn't have been "present" on another planet either!
In short: more analogous to human design = more analogous to human designer.
Comment by Daniel Smith — October 17, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
October 17th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
So you have decided that hell is the place for you, yet earlier accused me of "literally nauseating moral depravity" for suggesting that God would give you what you want?
Wow!
Comment by Daniel Smith — October 17, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
October 17th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Is Job really your favorite book, Rock? I think Job is an important book, perhaps the most important book in the Bible, but I wouldn’t describe it as my favorite book. Job is a tough brutally honest book which asks us to take a tough brutally honest look at life, ourselves and the world we live in. I always feel a little bit depressed after I finish reading Job because I ask myself if I could go through what Job went through. And that is even after reading the “happy ending.” Who in his right mind would ever want to go through something like that? Yet, on the other hand, I believe that Job did the right thing by believing, or at least trying to believe, the right thing.
This thread is about theodicy. But what is a theodicy?
I think this wikipedia definition is accurate:
Or, more accurately it is believers, or thinkers who think that they understand God, trying to justify God.
But does God if he really is God need anybody else to justify him? Does He even need to justify himself?
Consider what He says after he finally does decide to speak to Job.
Once again, Rock, you said above: “One reason why it was such a controversial inclusion was because God does not deign to explain himself or justify himself to Job (man). In that sense God is “beyond good and evil,” at least the human conception of good and evil.”
I agree with that.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — October 17, 2009 @ 9:41 pm
October 18th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Daniel Smith Says: Wow!
Explain to me the difference between your heaven and my hell, Daniel Smith.
If God wanted to torture me forever he’ll put me in heaven—Where I can hear the screams of the tormented and can do nothing about it. As Jesus described, God has created an impassible gulf between heaven hell, preventing both escape and rescue.
For people like me, moved to rescue, to save those afflicted, heaven is the ideal hell.
You're gonna shit when you see that I've arrived there before you! LOL
Comment by Rock — October 18, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
October 18th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
You need to repent, brother!
Deep inside you feel a bitter hatred for non-believers, and "hell" is just a sadistic revenge fantasy inspired by impotent hatred, which you have projected upon God.
?
Comment by Rock — October 18, 2009 @ 2:21 pm
October 18th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Show me where I've expressed "hatred" of any kind.
Comment by Daniel Smith — October 18, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
October 18th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
I've already done so Rock. Heaven will be living in the presence of God and enjoying all that that entails (all that is good comes from God). Hell will be living in the absence of God (and thus in the absence of all that is good). You've made your decision. God will allow you to live apart from him if you so choose.
Comment by Daniel Smith — October 18, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
October 18th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
What's the origin of that thought Rock?
I spend most of my time with non-believers. They are my neighbors and relatives. I was once one myself. Hatred? Hardly.
Comment by Bradford — October 18, 2009 @ 4:50 pm
October 19th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
fifth monarchy man writes:
As I mentioned earlier, this summary, while interesting, was not compellingly persuasive. Since then, I have come across an author who responds to Sailhamer's thesis. Here's some of his relevant points:
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
Note that I'm not saying Sailhamer is wrong (although this source does, although I will say Sailhamer is not convincing); I'm merely saying, "It seems to me that there's a whole lot of manipulation of the Scriptural text going on in this type of thinking…" and, "It seems to me that a straightforward reading of the text is that the earth/cosmos is roughly 6000 years old, and death/disease/predation did not exist prior to Adam's fall".
Comment by kenter — October 19, 2009 @ 4:13 pm
October 19th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Kenter
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. That's cool. Christians often disagree when it comes to disputable matters. I sometimes even disagree with myself
As long as you are consistent with your theory and don’t hold unity on this issue to be a standard of orthodoxy we can just wait till the Holy Spirit reveals which of us is in error.
It's important to keep in mind that one can hold to ID and a young earth as well. Design is design no matter who old the earth is.
I believe I could convince you over a lemonade though.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 19, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
October 21st, 2009 at 1:15 am
fifth monarchy man writes:
I can live with that.
I think this issue is important, as I believe ideas have consequences. But I also believe that there are weightier matters — justice, compassion, mercy, etc — which are more important when it comes to being a People of God.
I agree with you, that we can wait for the Holy Spirit to make the next move.
Shalom.
Comment by kenter — October 21, 2009 @ 1:15 am
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:46 am
What's the origin of that thought Rock?
Morbid curiosity.
Bilbo wasn't answering my other questions, and apparently no one else here has read the book.
It's not high on my "To Read" list either.
Comment by Rock — October 22, 2009 @ 11:46 am
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:59 pm
I used to think much the same way as you, Rock.
And then one day…
Comment by chunkdz — October 22, 2009 @ 12:59 pm