Are evangelicals finally coming to their senses?

I think what Mohler means is that without Adam, there would have been no Original Sin and therefore the atonement and salvation through the crucifixion of Christ would be meaningless and the entire Christian theology would fall.

Science employs "theories" based upon physical evidence to express truths about the physical world. Their purpose is to predict and control the natural world.

Religion employs "myths" based upon the working of the human mind in order to express human values. Their purpose is to explain our actions.

The problem arises when these two forms of truth are conflated.

Adam and Eve is a myth. It describes why we have opposing good and evil capabilities, and the consequences of choosing evil. Macbeth serves a similar purpose---Yet we can take away moral lessons from Macbeth without ever believing that its characters were real historical people. Why can we not do the same with Adam and Eve?

(PN: Mark Twain posthumously published "The Dairies of Eve and Adam". Entertaining---and even touching in places.)

andrewgao1 said: I think what Mohler means is that without Adam, there would have been no Original Sin and therefore the atonement and salvation through the crucifixion of Christ would be meaningless and the entire Christian theology would fall.

And fix that damned title above! "Are evangelicals is finally coming to their senses? WTF?!

With the amount of variety present in the human species, if it did come from one couple, that couple would have had to lived at least a hundred thousand years ago, or earlier, as it's been that long since our last genetic bottleneck (i.e., population crash).

Henry

... the work of Christ makes no sense whatsoever in Paul’s description of the Gospel

I read Mohler at some length. He takes a very long time and very many words to say "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it."

Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing!" --Bozarth, G. Richard, "The Meaning of Evolution," American Atheist (February 1978), page 30.

As we have seen, there is no basis in scripture for thinking that Adam was meant metaphorically. It is sometimes argued that since “Adam” was not a proper name at the time Genesis was written, but instead is just the Hebrew word for “man”, we are justified in treating Adam metaphorically. That this is specious becomes clear when you consider everything that Adam does. In Chapter Two the specifics of his creation and that of Eve are used to explain the origins of marriage. In Chapter Three, specific actions he takes result in the curse on creation. In Chapter Five we are given a meticulous list of descendants linking him to Noah. It seems a bit odd to think that a metaphorical man could leave literal descendants. And in the New Testament he is discussed in terms that make him sound as real as Jesus. Metaphorizing Adam is easier said than done. --Jason Rosenhouse, EvolutionBlog, 12-19-2010

Mohler is both wrong and right. Without the Adam *allegory*, Paul's description makes no sense whatsoever. And the context of Paul's statements would indicate he was not relying on a historical Adam as well. (Though naturally, in that age, he would have had no difficulty with a historical Adam.)

Science shows that all of humanity are indeed descended from a single couple. We are all descended from Mitochondrial Eve's parents. Of course there are lots of other couples from whom we are all also descended, but mere descent from a single couple is not an issue for science. It is the size of the population of which that couple were members that causes the disagreement between biologists and Biblical literalists.

That would be against all the genomic evidence that we've assembled over the last 20 years, so not likely at all.

Is Matt Youg is finally going to read the title he chose?

Unfortunately, the science does indicate that we are all descended from Noah and his wife.

Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7008/full/nature02842.html

The MRCA (most recent common ancestor) of all present-day humans lived just a few thousand years ago in these models. Moreover, among all individuals living more than just a few thousand years earlier than the MRCA, each present-day human has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors.

But, in any case, evolutionists maintain that all humans are descended from a single individual who had fused chromosome 2s and went on to found the human lineage. This "Darwinian Adam" may not have been "human" as such but he was the progenitor of all mankind.

Joe Felsenstein said: Is Matt Youg is finally going to read the title he chose?

Joe Felsenstein said:

Joe Felsenstein said: Is Matt Youg is finally going to read the title he chose?

... and am I finally going to learn to proofread? Matt Young.

I would point out as a historical note, that for much of the late 19th Century into early 20th Century, Fundamentalist Protestant Christian Americans accepted as valid science (and scientific fact), evolutionary theory and biological evolution. It was only during World War I, in reaction to German intelligentsia's embrace of "Darwinism", or rather Social Darwinism, which gave their empire the divine right to wage war against "lesser" peoples, that Fundamentalists opted to reject evolution en masse, according to noted vertebrate paleobiologist Don Prothero. So a better title for Matt Young's post might be, "Are Fundamentalists Returning To Their Senses?"

John said: I would point out as a historical note, that for much of the late 19th Century into early 20th Century, Fundamentalist Protestant Christian Americans accepted as valid science (and scientific fact), evolutionary theory and biological evolution. It was only during World War I, in reaction to German intelligentsia's embrace of "Darwinism", or rather Social Darwinism, which gave their empire the divine right to wage war against "lesser" peoples, that Fundamentalists opted to reject evolution en masse, according to noted vertebrate paleobiologist Don Prothero. So a better title for Matt Young's post might be, "Are Fundamentalists Returning To Their Senses?"

circleh said:

andrewgao1 said: I think what Mohler means is that without Adam, there would have been no Original Sin and therefore the atonement and salvation through the crucifixion of Christ would be meaningless and the entire Christian theology would fall.

The idea that the death of a God-man is necessary to forgive human sin IS meaningless, because it make God himself look limited in what he can do. A truly all powerful God could simply accept the repentance of a sinner and forgive him. No death is necessary. But it s a great way to guilt trip someone into following a leader that uses the name of Jesus and that wants you to jump through hoops the leader made up for life.

Atheistoclast said: Unfortunately, the science does indicate that we are all descended from Noah and his wife. Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7008/full/nature02842.html The MRCA (most recent common ancestor) of all present-day humans lived just a few thousand years ago in these models. Moreover, among all individuals living more than just a few thousand years earlier than the MRCA, each present-day human has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors. But, in any case, evolutionists maintain that all humans are descended from a single individual who had fused chromosome 2s and went on to found the human lineage. This "Darwinian Adam" may not have been "human" as such but he was the progenitor of all mankind.

Atheistoclast said:

John said: I would point out as a historical note, that for much of the late 19th Century into early 20th Century, Fundamentalist Protestant Christian Americans accepted as valid science (and scientific fact), evolutionary theory and biological evolution. It was only during World War I, in reaction to German intelligentsia's embrace of "Darwinism", or rather Social Darwinism, which gave their empire the divine right to wage war against "lesser" peoples, that Fundamentalists opted to reject evolution en masse, according to noted vertebrate paleobiologist Don Prothero. So a better title for Matt Young's post might be, "Are Fundamentalists Returning To Their Senses?"

That is simply not true because it was only until the 1940s that scientists accepted Darwinian and Mendelian evolutionism. Nowadays, more and more scientists are abandoning the leaky ship of Darwinism and embracing alternative ideas. I guarantee you there will be no celebration of Darwin in 2059. That is a firm prediction.

IBelieveInGod the psychotic Xian creotard barked:

circleh said:

andrewgao1 said: I think what Mohler means is that without Adam, there would have been no Original Sin and therefore the atonement and salvation through the crucifixion of Christ would be meaningless and the entire Christian theology would fall.

The idea that the death of a God-man is necessary to forgive human sin IS meaningless, because it make God himself look limited in what he can do. A truly all powerful God could simply accept the repentance of a sinner and forgive him. No death is necessary. But it s a great way to guilt trip someone into following a leader that uses the name of Jesus and that wants you to jump through hoops the leader made up for life.

God does accept the repentance of a sinner and forgives him! Are you really this ignorant?

Atheistoclast said: it was only until the 1940s that scientists accepted Darwinian and Mendelian evolutionism. Nowadays, more and more scientists are abandoning the leaky ship of Darwinism and embracing alternative ideas. I guarantee you there will be no celebration of Darwin in 2059. That is a firm prediction.

John said: But you are still wrong in trying to explain away the fact that your fellow Fundamentalists DID ACCEPT the scientific validity of biological evolution until World War I.

Atheistofool the babbling psychotic Xian creotard barked:

John said: But you are still wrong in trying to explain away the fact that your fellow Fundamentalists DID ACCEPT the scientific validity of biological evolution until World War I.

They did not accept evolution by natural selection. They may well have accepted some form of common ancestry but let us remind ourselves that the idea that all life is descended from a common ancestor is just as extreme as the Genesis account that all humanity is descended from Adam. It is, in fact, a radical extension of the latter. The reason why sudden creationism is back in vogue is because 200 years of fossil hunting has produced a dearth of "transitional" specimens. I know you will claim many have since been found, but these can all be easily disputed and are certainly not as extensive, both quantitatively and qualitatively, to what Darwin predicted in the Origin. Scandals like "Piltdown Man" and hyped-up nonsense about "Ida" have also convinced many that evolutionism was essentially a hoax and a dogma.

I really wish these people would ask themselves WHY they believe what they believe. I'm not sure they're even capable of introspection. I recently heard an (allegedly) educated and intelligent Episcopalian priest cite the (alleged) witnessing of Jesus after death as evidence of resurrection. Why on Earth does he find this convincing?! A fundamental law of biology is broken, and 2000 year old hearsay constitutes evidence in his mind? If a bunch of people go camping and return claiming that one had been dead for two days, would he also buy this?

Matt G said: I really wish these people would ask themselves WHY they believe what they believe. I'm not sure they're even capable of introspection. I recently heard an (allegedly) educated and intelligent Episcopalian priest cite the (alleged) witnessing of Jesus after death as evidence of resurrection. Why on Earth does he find this convincing?! A fundamental law of biology is broken, and 2000 year old hearsay constitutes evidence in his mind? If a bunch of people go camping and return claiming that one had been dead for two days, would he also buy this?

SWT said:

Atheistoclast said: Unfortunately, the science does indicate that we are all descended from Noah and his wife. Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7008/full/nature02842.html The MRCA (most recent common ancestor) of all present-day humans lived just a few thousand years ago in these models. Moreover, among all individuals living more than just a few thousand years earlier than the MRCA, each present-day human has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors. But, in any case, evolutionists maintain that all humans are descended from a single individual who had fused chromosome 2s and went on to found the human lineage. This "Darwinian Adam" may not have been "human" as such but he was the progenitor of all mankind.

The statistical argument in the article you cite (and for those of you who can't conveniently get to the article, the paper presents a statistical argument) doesn't actually support your contention that "we all descended from Noah and his wife". A "Genesis flood" scenario is actually inconsistent with the assumptions of the model.

Is Matt Youg is finally going to read the title he chose?

harold said: So, in your opinion, how old is the earth, was there ever a global flood, if so how long ago, and if so, is the biblical story of Noah's ark literally true? Please do not bother to reply without answering all questions.

John said: I didn't say that they accepted evolution via Natural Selection, moron. As for your observation that "sudden creationism" is "in vogue", it is one replete in breathtaking inanity, moron.

FL needs to grow up and deal with reality, Atheistoclast needs to stop lying about the acceptance of evolution, and IBIG needs to look a lot deeper at what I actually said about salvation.

Atheistoclast said: They did not accept evolution by natural selection. They may well have accepted some form of common ancestry but let us remind ourselves that the idea that all life is descended from a common ancestor is just as extreme as the Genesis account that all humanity is descended from Adam. It is, in fact, a radical extension of the latter. The reason why sudden creationism is back in vogue is because 200 years of fossil hunting has produced a dearth of "transitional" specimens. I know you will claim many have since been found, but these can all be easily disputed and are certainly not as extensive, both quantitatively and qualitatively, to what Darwin predicted in the Origin. Scandals like "Piltdown Man" and hyped-up nonsense about "Ida" have also convinced many that evolutionism was essentially a hoax and a dogma.

IBelieveInGod said: So, eyewitness testimony shouldn't be accepted as evidence according to your logic?

A subject that's been on my mind for a very long time is mankind's path from its infancy as just another animal, to a self-conscious, thinking, reasoning, and most strikingly - a moral-conscious being.

After som many years, I stumbled across a book written by philosopher and lecturer at the Nansen school (ref. the Frithjof Nansen of North pole and Greenland exploration fame) in Norway, Helge Salemonsen, "Under the Tree of Knowledge."

From my studies of depth psychology I already had some understanding of the subject, but here, for the first time, I realized that the ancient Greeks already had covered the subject. Gods, myths and philosphers; like Promethevs, Hefaistos, Homer, the Iliad, Odyssevs, Parmenides, Platon, Socrates, Aristotle and many more.

Hegel wrote: (1970, Vorlesungen Uber die Geschichte der Philosophie, vol 1, p.389) I translate from Norwegian: Paradise is a garden, where only animals but not mankind may stay. For the animal is one with God; although only an sich [i.e. only naively, indifferent, without awareness of this union.] Only mankind is spirit. And therefore mankind only of all living beings in nature is “something special.” This for-itself-being, this consciousness at the same time is separation from the universal divine spirit. [or from nature.]

What this has with Adam and Eve to do? Everything. From living in ‘paradise’; they learn “knowing good and evil.” to become aware of their sexuality, view their innocent, natural nakedness with shame, that is, assigning a moral quality of good vs bad to what before had been just the way things are, without any qualifier.

That’s when and how moral/morality entered the world, and that has been man’s constant problem since then.

We do of course realize that Adam and Eve were not, never was meant to be portrayed as historical persons, what we are reading is poetry, poetry is the original way of expressing human thought. The process, the “fall” was not a unique event involving two people; it is a poetic rendering of a process taking place within a population in the infancy of civilization.

That painful process is not over, the condition of our religions and the conflicts both within and without are proof of that.

The problem probably never may find a 'solution', it is just the way things are because we are the product of natural forces. It's the best nature could manage and we are messing it up.

That’s the best I can manage, hope it has some merit.

And don't forget that they directly and massively contradict each other, especially in the "Easter morning" accounts. If you want a good laugh, read an apologist's tapdancing efforts to reconcile all the conflicting Easter accounts into a single story, with none of those holy people making mistakes, misremembering, or just making stuff up to jump on the "I saw Jesus" bandwagon.

I am agnostic as to the age of the earth. I think the material the Earth is made up of may well be 4.6 billion years old, but the planet itself be much younger. It is like trying to date the construction of a mahogany table by determining the age of the tree that was used to supply the wood.

I doubt there was ever a global flood but I am sure there was some sort of catastrophic regional flood that created the Black Sea, Caspian Sea and other such features. It might have happened about 5000 years ago.

Noah was the first ethologist and zoologist. I regard the Ark as a primitive research vessel rather than an attempt to repopulate the Earth with every species

IBelieveInGod said: So, eyewitness testimony shouldn't be accepted as evidence according to your logic?

harold said: 1) Why do you think that scientists would make a silly error like that? Don't you realize that people have thought of this? About 98% of your problem seems to be a pathological inability to respect the work of other people.

2) This is more or less a mainstream idea.

Then why did you claim above, based on a 2004 letter to the editor of Nature that was never followed up, presumably not from creationists, and did not mention Noah, that all modern humans are descended from Noah?

circleh said: FL needs to grow up and deal with reality, Atheistoclast needs to stop lying about the acceptance of evolution, and IBIG needs to look a lot deeper at what I actually said about salvation.

Atheistoclast said: Unfortunately, the science does indicate that we are all descended from Noah and his wife.

Atheistoclast said: It is not an "error" so much as a possible misinterpretation of good data.

Atheistoclast said:

circleh said: FL needs to grow up and deal with reality, Atheistoclast needs to stop lying about the acceptance of evolution, and IBIG needs to look a lot deeper at what I actually said about salvation.

I'd like to see a proper, scientifically-researched survey of scientists' view of Darwinism across the entire world. The NCSE, NAS and AAAS are terrified at the prospect of such a thing happening because they know what the results will be.

I’d like to see a proper, scientifically-researched survey of scientists’ view of Darwinism across the entire world.

Atheistoclast said: I'd like to see a proper, scientifically-researched survey of scientists' view of Darwinism across the entire world. The NCSE, NAS and AAAS are terrified at the prospect of such a thing happening because they know what the results will be.

Atheistoclast said: It is not an "error" so much as a possible misinterpretation of good data.

If we didn't have radiometric dating methods, it would be very hard to claim that the Earth was 4.6 billion years old based on rock formations etc.

I think we shouldn't depend solely on one set of methods alone.

Scientists are not infallible: They can be spectacularly wrong on occasion.

See, someone who wasn't pathologically dishonest ...

I think what Mohler means is that without Adam, there would have been no Original Sin and therefore the atonement and salvation through the crucifixion of Christ would be meaningless and the entire Christian theology would fall.

IBelieveInBeingCrazy said: So, eyewitness testimony shouldn’t be accepted as evidence according to your logic?

raven said: What will kill xianity is insisting that false and dumb things like creationism are true. Mohler knows that too. The Southern Baptists, his religion, are losing members steadily and retention rates of young people are 30%. Their own projections have them half their current size in a few decades.

Science Avenger said:

Atheistoclast said: It is not an "error" so much as a possible misinterpretation of good data.

Therein lies the epistemological bottomless pit that so many people fall into. By dismissing evidence that conflicts with one's POV on the basis of possible error, one cements one's POV, and all the errors that come with it. Once one begins to do this, no evidence is ever good enough.

National Council of Churches: Total church membership reported in the 2011 Yearbook is 145,838,339 members, down 1.05 percent over 2010.

The enterprise of science is about observations and the interpretations we draw from them. Often, any two scientists can be looking at exactly the same data and can still reach completely different conclusions based upon it.

Meanwhile, Jerry Coyne just nails the entire mess. He spells out the entire scandal with utter clarity. Put this on the Required Reading list.

IBelieveInGod said:

Matt G said: I really wish these people would ask themselves WHY they believe what they believe. I'm not sure they're even capable of introspection. I recently heard an (allegedly) educated and intelligent Episcopalian priest cite the (alleged) witnessing of Jesus after death as evidence of resurrection. Why on Earth does he find this convincing?! A fundamental law of biology is broken, and 2000 year old hearsay constitutes evidence in his mind? If a bunch of people go camping and return claiming that one had been dead for two days, would he also buy this?

So, eyewitness testimony shouldn't be accepted as evidence according to your logic?

Often, any two scientists can be looking at exactly the same data and can still reach completely different conclusions based upon it.

raven said:

Often, any two scientists can be looking at exactly the same data and can still reach completely different conclusions based upon it.

That is simply a lie. If you were ever a scientist (doubtful, IMO), you aren't any more.

Atheistoclast said:

Science Avenger said:

Atheistoclast said: It is not an "error" so much as a possible misinterpretation of good data.

Therein lies the epistemological bottomless pit that so many people fall into. By dismissing evidence that conflicts with one's POV on the basis of possible error, one cements one's POV, and all the errors that come with it. Once one begins to do this, no evidence is ever good enough.

The enterprise of science is about observations and the interpretations we draw from them. Often, any two scientists can be looking at exactly the same data and can still reach completely different conclusions based upon it. You have to realize that there are assumptions, prejudices and ideologies in science just as there are in politics and religion.

Matt, The thread is being derailed by trolls again. The conversation has moved beyond the topic of the thread. Time for another flush to the bathroom wall. Of well, at least the fundies have answered the question posed.

In the spirit of this thread. lol

http://digitalheterodoxy.blogspot.com/2011/08/question-evolution-its-cool-thing-to-do.html

What all has Fuzale Rana wrote? I know he is part of Reason to Believe, but can anyone recommend a book by him?

Matt Young said: Yes, thanks, I do not think it is entirely off topic, but perhaps it is time to stop feeding the trolls before it becomes so.

Science Avenger said:

Atheistoclast said: It is not an "error" so much as a possible misinterpretation of good data.

Therein lies the epistemological bottomless pit that so many people fall into. By dismissing evidence that conflicts with one's POV on the basis of possible error, one cements one's POV, and all the errors that come with it. Once one begins to do this, no evidence is ever good enough.

Fuzale Rana, literalist though he is, is correct when he says, “But if the parts of Scripture that you are claiming to be false, in effect, are responsible for creating the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, then you’ve got a problem.” Yes, you’ve got a problem. Because if Adam and Eve didn’t really exist in the way the Bible describes them, maybe Jesus didn’t either. And if he didn’t, there goes Christianity. For even non-literalist but evangelical Christians, like Francis Collins, hold fast to the literal truth of the divinity and resurrection of Christ. Why does that story bear more veracity than Adam and Eve? If it doesn’t, there’s simply no good reason to continue being a Christian. --Evolutionist Jerry Coyne, "NPR: The veracity of Adam and Eve is a crisis for faith" http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/adam-and-eve-raise-their-ugly-heads-on-npr-2/

VARVES!

Let us hope that they are the thin edge of the wedge.

— Matt Young

FL said:

Fuzale Rana, literalist though he is, is correct when he says, [snip]

FL

Atheistoclast said: The enterprise of science is about observations and the interpretations we draw from them. Often, any two scientists can be looking at exactly the same data and can still reach completely different conclusions based upon it. You have to realize that there are assumptions, prejudices and ideologies in science just as there are in politics and religion.

Atheistofraud said: The enterprise of science is about observations and the interpretations we draw from them. Often, any two scientists can be looking at exactly the same data and can still reach completely different conclusions based upon it. You have to realize that there are assumptions, prejudices and ideologies in science just as there are in politics and religion.

raven said:

National Council of Churches: Total church membership reported in the 2011 Yearbook is 145,838,339 members, down 1.05 percent over 2010.

Despite the claims of the trolls that science is dying, it isn't. What is dying is US xianity. Last year according to the National Council of Churches, 1.5 million members dropped off the church roles. Polling data shows the same thing. In a few decades with present trends, xians will fall below 50%. Rather than destroying Darwinism, creationism is and will destroy US xianity.

Science Avenger said:

Atheistoclast said: The enterprise of science is about observations and the interpretations we draw from them. Often, any two scientists can be looking at exactly the same data and can still reach completely different conclusions based upon it. You have to realize that there are assumptions, prejudices and ideologies in science just as there are in politics and religion.

No, there aren't. Religion is about interpretations of facts. Politics is about value judgements filtered through ideologies. Science is about evidence gathered in falsifiable repeatable experiments. Religion is about what we should do. Politicfs is about what we do. Science is about what is. They aren't remotely similar.

Glen Davidson said: About the only places in mature science where real scientists disagree in interpretation are where the fundamental nature of reality intrudes, such as in QM. Science is a fair interpretation, then. And for that, it is attacked by the IDiots and other dogmatists. Glen Davidson

circleh said: So it's not just religious fanatics who get knocked down by scientific advancement, because Hoyle was an atheist. It's not just religion that produces cranks, it's just the inability of anyone to admit to having been wrong about something.

circleh said:

Glen Davidson said: About the only places in mature science where real scientists disagree in interpretation are where the fundamental nature of reality intrudes, such as in QM. Science is a fair interpretation, then. And for that, it is attacked by the IDiots and other dogmatists. Glen Davidson

That's not quite correct. Another area of honest disagreement among scientists is when the evidence known so far in a certain field of study has not yet ruled out various competing hypotheses, leaving only one still standing. The mid-20th Century controversy among astronomers regarding the Big Bang theory vs the Steady State theory shows that when one theory is clearly supported by new evidence, the controversy goes away, at least among most of them. Incidentally, Fred Hoyle, who lead the proponents of the Steady State theory, never admitted he had been wrong and later was dismissed as a crank.....just like Creationists today are. So it's not just religious fanatics who get knocked down by scientific advancement, because Hoyle was an atheist. It's not just religion that produces cranks, it's just the inability of anyone to admit to having been wrong about something.

FL needs to explain what exactly he’s responding to, if anything, with this post.

Fuzale Rana, literalist though he is, is correct when he says, “But if the parts of Scripture that you are claiming to be false, in effect, are responsible for creating the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, then you’ve got a problem.” Yes, you’ve got a problem. Because if Adam and Eve didn’t really exist in the way the Bible describes them, maybe Jesus didn’t either. And if he didn’t, there goes Christianity. For even non-literalist but evangelical Christians, like Francis Collins, hold fast to the literal truth of the divinity and resurrection of Christ. Why does that story bear more veracity than Adam and Eve? If it doesn’t, there’s simply no good reason to continue being a Christian.

FL said:

FL needs to explain what exactly he’s responding to, if anything, with this post.

It's pretty clear. The OP suggested that Dennis Venema and his pals are on the right track. In contrast, evolutionist Jerry Coyne explains why Dennis Venema and his pals are on the wrong track.

Fuzale Rana, literalist though he is, is correct when he says, “But if the parts of Scripture that you are claiming to be false, in effect, are responsible for creating the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, then you’ve got a problem.” Yes, you’ve got a problem. Because if Adam and Eve didn’t really exist in the way the Bible describes them, maybe Jesus didn’t either. And if he didn’t, there goes Christianity. For even non-literalist but evangelical Christians, like Francis Collins, hold fast to the literal truth of the divinity and resurrection of Christ. Why does that story bear more veracity than Adam and Eve? If it doesn’t, there’s simply no good reason to continue being a Christian.

FL

Dave Luckett said:

IBelieveInGod said: So, eyewitness testimony shouldn't be accepted as evidence according to your logic?

Biggy, what you call "eyewitness testimony" of the appearances of Jesus after death are mostly second or third hand accounts, and they're not consistent with each other. The closest thing to an eyewitness account we have is John's, although it's a stretch to believe that the disciple wrote any part of that Gospel himself. John says Jesus turned up by the Sea of Galilee. Matthew says he met the disciples on a mountain. Luke says the road to Emmaus. Each of these appearances is mentioned by only one of them. Mark originally didn't say anything - the last twelve verses of Mark are a later addition, by an unknown hand. The other three say he appeared to the disciples in a room, but only John has the doubting Thomas story. Luke says that the two travellers to Emmaus returned to Jerusalem and found the disciples already believing in the Resurrection; Mark's addendum contradicts this. Above all, none of this was written down until forty years later, most likely. In John's case, more like sixty or seventy. I've said that if I had firm evidence of a miracle happening, I'd accept it. This doesn't meet that criterion. It looks far more to me like hearsay, mythmaking and the embroidery of memory, all human activities very familiar to the historian.

Because if Adam and Eve didn’t really exist in the way the Bible describes them, maybe Jesus didn’t either. And if he didn’t, there goes Christianity.

Oops, (Literalistic faith...

Henry, doesn't it strike you as the least bit odd that although all the gospels say that Jesus appeared after death, all of them give totally different accounts of what those appearances were, and when and where? None of them corroborate any of the others about those appearances.

Because that's how it strikes me. As odd. Very odd.

And then there's that forty days business. You do know forty was a magic number, don't you? It had a narrative significance. Forty days fasting in the wilderness. Forty thieves. The rain lasts forty days and forty nights; the spies take forty days to scout the Land of Canaan. Many other examples. The fact that it turns up here looks suspicious - as if the people telling the story were saying, "This has magic significance, it's a magical story."

Maybe it just so happens that none of the Gospel writers decided to write of the same events as any of the others. Maybe, just by sheer chance, the period between the resurrection and the ascension just happened to be forty days. But it's still odd, wouldn't you say?

Creationists have very mixed feelings about Hoyle – they like his “tornado in a junkyard” rubbish, but they back up really fast when I throw Hoyle’s fanatical defense of steady-state in their faces: “Well, he was right about evolution and wrong about that.”

— mrg

I find it amusing that you take atheists at their word when it suits your own bigoted purposes to slam both evolution and more liberal forms of Christianity. Then you turn around and slam atheists too. That only means you are a two-faced hypocrite.

Frank J said: Excellent point, though yet another reason that I dislike the word "creationists." Most rank and file creationists (I prefer "evolution-deniers") never heard of Hoyle, let alone his religious views, while anti-evolution activists are skilled in what to say and what to omit, with a goal of uniting their followers and dividing their critics. Ironically I wish we were more like them in that respect. Another intersting irony, which makes perfect sense if one considers "creationism" a strategy instead of a belief, is how so many activists rave about Behe, who accepts common descent, yet rarely mention Schwabe and Senapathy, who don't. That's because the latter two propose "naturalistic" hypotheses, and do not have a prior commitment to what I call "Klinghofferism" - where the real objection to evolution is the fear that it leads to evil behavior, not anything to do with evidence.

mrg said: Just along the lines of creationist endorsement of Lynn Margulies and her descent into rantings. Margulies is no friend of creationists, but as long as she's a troublemaker, no matter how silly, they are all for her.

For the fortieth time, FL, here's the refutation:

Adam and Eve need not be understood as real persons, any more than the Fall must be understood as the result of eating a fruit. These can and should be understood metaphorically.

At some point in our evolutionary journey, we humans acquired empathy, the ability to put ourselves in the place of another. We also came to understand consequence, the likely outcome of our actions. That is, we have the knowledge of good and evil. We know the consequences of what we do. We know how those consequences will affect others. Having that knowledge necessarily entails responsibility for our acts.

We are responsible for everything we do, but we fail because we do not know ourselves perfectly. We do wrong, knowing that we do wrong, and that is sin. We do wrong, not knowing that we do it, and that is original sin. That is our Fall, not eating a fruit. But the tale in Genesis wraps it up very neatly. The Fall lies in the very act of acquiring the knowledge of good and evil. To acquire that knowledge means that innocence is lost. We are fallen from innocence. But we are not fallen from Grace.

Hence the need, not only for contrition and forgiveness for the sins we know, but redemption for those we do not know. That is, the redeeming power of Jesus, his death and his Resurrection are all necessary.

Christian theology does not need a literal fruit and a literal Adam and Eve, FL.

Foolish Liar said:

I find it amusing that you take atheists at their word when it suits your own bigoted purposes to slam both evolution and more liberal forms of Christianity. Then you turn around and slam atheists too. That only means you are a two-faced hypocrite.

But what I find amusing, is that you have NO refutation for the statements of either creationist Fazale Rana or evolutionist Jerry Coyne. Me being a hypocrite or not, does NOT diminish the factuality of what they're saying. Engage that, if you will. FL

OK, enough of this kind of invective. Whether or not what PR42 says is true, it adds nothing of substance to the discussion. If you have nothing substantive to say, then please do not say anything. I will send further outbursts to the BW.

Frank J said:

Creationists have very mixed feelings about Hoyle – they like his “tornado in a junkyard” rubbish, but they back up really fast when I throw Hoyle’s fanatical defense of steady-state in their faces: “Well, he was right about evolution and wrong about that.”

— mrg

Excellent point, though yet another reason that I dislike the word "creationists." Most rank and file creationists (I prefer "evolution-deniers") never heard of Hoyle, let alone his religious views, while anti-evolution activists are skilled in what to say and what to omit, with a goal of uniting their followers and dividing their critics. Ironically I wish we were more like them in that respect. Another intersting irony, which makes perfect sense if one considers "creationism" a strategy instead of a belief, is how so many activists rave about Behe, who accepts common descent, yet rarely mention Schwabe and Senapathy, who don't. That's because the latter two propose "naturalistic" hypotheses, and do not have a prior commitment to what I call "Klinghofferism" - where the real objection to evolution is the fear that it leads to evil behavior, not anything to do with evidence.

I tend to prefer “creationism” over all other alternatives, for the simple reason that all the alternatives are just attempts to conceal the embarrassing fact that they are creationism with a different paint job. I no longer am inclined to call creationists names, because “creationist” is embarrassing enough.

— mrg

While “creationist” may not capture the essence of this political movement, “scientific creationism” is how it started out in the 1970s under Henry Morris and Duane Gish. The morph into “intelligent design” after Edwards v. Aguillard is just one of many of the bends and blurs that characterize the attempts of ID/creationists to camouflage themselves and their motives.

— Mike Elzinga

Frank J said: Maybe I'm wrong (evidence would be appreciated) but I don't think that those we most need to reach considers "creationism" or "creationist(s)" bad words, even if they don't consider them strictly complimentary.

Excellent point, though yet another reason that I dislike the word “creationists.” Most rank and file creationists (I prefer “evolution-deniers”) never heard of Hoyle, let alone his religious views, while anti-evolution activists are skilled in what to say and what to omit, with a goal of uniting their followers and dividing their critics. Ironically I wish we were more like them in that respect.

Another intersting irony, which makes perfect sense if one considers “creationism” a strategy instead of a belief, is how so many activists rave about Behe, who accepts common descent, yet rarely mention Schwabe and Senapathy, who don’t. That’s because the latter two propose “naturalistic” hypotheses, and do not have a prior commitment to what I call “Klinghofferism” - where the real objection to evolution is the fear that it leads to evil behavior, not anything to do with evidence

harold said: If they want to stop lying about science, lay off of the public schools, and be honest religious fundamentalists, all I can say is "Amen".

harold said: ...in maximum disobedience to the actual Biblical figures God and Jesus, and most prophets, I might note, all of whom demand honesty and testifying of faith regardless of circumstances.

And how about SAINT Peter, the morning after?

...the current mentality is that evolution denial is the “lowest common denominator” and any Abrahamic evolution denier will apparently cheer on any other Abrahamic evolution denier - that’s just the zeitgeist of the last couple of decades.

— harold

Just Bob said:

harold said: ...in maximum disobedience to the actual Biblical figures God and Jesus, and most prophets, I might note, all of whom demand honesty and testifying of faith regardless of circumstances.

Does Abraham count? While he's clearly under God's watchful eye and protection, he lies about Sarah being his wife, and orders her to lie, to save his own cowardly skin because he's afraid someone might kill her husband to get at her. All without any reprimand form God, and apparent approval, since He could intervene at any time. Oh, and don't forget the lie from the Big Guy Himself about what will result if A&E eat the fruit. It's the SNAKE who tells the truth.

We agree. Some at least are perfectly willing to "lie for Jesus" (or maybe it's "lie for the god of Genesis), and see nothing wrong with that at all. That's what some of their biblical heroes did.

Others have better morals than that. Many, I suspect, don't intentionally lie, but their confirmation bias is so strong that they just can't "hear" the truth.

IBelieveInGod said: So, eyewitness testimony shouldn't be accepted as evidence according to your logic?

Nope. Rather there is a attempt to try to tell evangelicals that some Evangelical leaders say Adam was a no show.
It all goes to prove the Evangelical opposition to evolution is powerful, persuasive, and entrenched.
Its like a army of thought.
One must attack the army if one wishes to save evolution from increasing and persuasive criticism.
In short the christian belief is a opponent to evolutionism.
This is no small matter in human intellectual thought since the reformation.

How can you beat a belief that the bible is the word of GOD!?
you have to prove your case of evolution on the merits of the evidence.
Nothing else will work.
What's the problem?

It all goes to prove the Evangelical opposition to evolution is powerful, persuasive, and entrenched. Its like a army of thought.

— Robert Buers

(OK, just a little feeding for the benefit of the readers)

People are fussing about this mysterious "Byers" again! It seems to be a delusion that crops up every now and then.

I bet it has something with the hallucinatory drugs in the Chemtrails(TM).

mrg said: I bet it has something with the hallucinatory drugs in the Chemtrails(TM).

bplurt said: That's what They want you to believe...

If tin doesn't work, try lead - it's in the same column on the periodic chart, so it should work if tin does.

From a (very) outside perspective, I see creationists as motivated by two needs:

1) The personal need for Absolute Truth, laid down by an Absolute Authority. I think this explains the virulent anti-evolution sentiment, since evolution directly conflicts with the chosen Absolute Truth.

2) The social need for Absolute Consensus. Unbelievers threaten need 1, and must be converted. This explains the relentless effort to have Absolute Truth taught as truth in public schools.

Science as an enterprise is inherently tentative, and can be made comprehensible only by casting it in terms of absolutes. So the method of science isn't understandable. The findings of science are absolutely either right or wrong.

The authoritarian personality does not want to give orders, their personality type wants to take orders. People with this type of personality seek conformity, security, stability. They become anxious and insecure when events or circumstances upset their previously existing world view. They are very intolerant of any divergence from what they consider to be the normal (which is usually conceptualized in terms of their religion, race, history, nationality, culture, language, etc.) They tend to be very superstitious and lend credence to folktales or interpretations of history that fit their preexisting definitions of reality (thus the Founding Fathers of the US are conceptualized of as supporters of white nationalism.) They think in extremely stereotyped ways about minorities, women, homosexuals, etc. They are thus very dualistic- the world is conceived in terms of absolute right (their way) Vs. absolute wrong (the "other" whether African American, liberal, intellectual, feminist, etc.)

Matt Young wrote: National Public Radio claimed that “Evangelicals Question the Existence of Adam and Eve.” ...Dennis Venema of Trinity Western University and a few other evangelical scholars argue, correctly, that evolutionary theory precludes the possibility that all of humanity descended from a single couple. Let us hope that they are the thin edge of the wedge.

"...leave Calvin because of tensions raised by his scholarship and a desire that these tensions not create "harm and distraction." ...his "recent and proposed scholarly work addressing issues in genetic science and Christian theology, as they relate to human origin, have engendered legitimate concerns within the college community and its constituencies." http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/08/15/a_professor_s_departure_raises_questions_about_freedom_of_scholarship_at_calvin_college

The idea that the great mass of “evangelicals are finally” changing in any significant way is a pipe dream.

Dave Luckett said: Flint, I think you are describing an aspect of the authoritarian personality as described by Adarno (1950):

The authoritarian personality does not want to give orders, their personality type wants to take orders. People with this type of personality seek conformity, security, stability. They become anxious and insecure when events or circumstances upset their previously existing world view. They are very intolerant of any divergence from what they consider to be the normal (which is usually conceptualized in terms of their religion, race, history, nationality, culture, language, etc.) They tend to be very superstitious and lend credence to folktales or interpretations of history that fit their preexisting definitions of reality (thus the Founding Fathers of the US are conceptualized of as supporters of white nationalism.) They think in extremely stereotyped ways about minorities, women, homosexuals, etc. They are thus very dualistic- the world is conceived in terms of absolute right (their way) Vs. absolute wrong (the "other" whether African American, liberal, intellectual, feminist, etc.)

Adarno's work has been challenged, but this description of a personality type, I believe, still stands. It defines an entire stream of culture - as we have seen here.

Correction accepted. Either my eyes or my memory are not what they were.

Dave Luckett said:

The idea that the great mass of “evangelicals are finally” changing in any significant way is a pipe dream.

The hard core will never change.

I am not a regular contributor to Panda's Thumb but I do stop by and read it from time to time. It seems to me there is a lot of disagreement about the origin of man, but what bothers me is the hatred and despising many of you have for one another. If evolution is true, what are you evolving into? If people can't even have basic regard and respect for one another as human beings what is the purpose for your existence? What good is your knowledge if you lack empathy for your fellow man, whether you believe you evolved from nothing or whether you believe you were created by an omnipotent Creator? Your words tell a lot about who you are as a person. Please try to be more respectful of one another. People can disagree on something and still have regard for the other person. Personally, I think it would be far more beneficial to study on where you're going than to fuss and fight about where you came from.

I can try to be sympathetic with the "let's just all LOVE one another" approach, but still think that respect for evidence MATTERS. If some folks don't want to hear it, fine. If those folks are trying to keep others ignorant, especially children, that's not so fine. What people despise here isn't so much the stone ignorance, as the relentless effort to spread and enforce that ignorance.

eric wrote: the 40+ year olds who grew up before genomics and commercial off the shelf molecular biology were normal things will die off.

if you grew up 50 years later, you were likely a Christian heliocentrist

John S. said: People can disagree on something and still have regard for the other person.

John S. said: I am not a regular contributor to Panda's Thumb but I do stop by and read it from time to time. It seems to me there is a lot of disagreement about the origin of man, but what bothers me is the hatred and despising many of you have for one another. ...

John S. said: It seems to me there is a lot of disagreement about the origin of man,

If evolution is true, what are you evolving into?

What good is your knowledge if you lack empathy for your fellow man,

Personally, I think it would be far more beneficial to study on where you're going than to fuss and fight about where you came from.

I am not a regular contributor to Panda’s Thumb but I do stop by and read it from time to time. It seems to me there is a lot of disagreement about the origin of man,

but what bothers me is the hatred and despising many of you have for one another.

If evolution is true, what are you evolving into?

If people can’t even have basic regard and respect for one another as human beings what is the purpose for your existence?

What good is your knowledge if you lack empathy for your fellow man, whether you believe you evolved from nothing or whether you believe you were created by an omnipotent Creator?

our words tell a lot about who you are as a person. Please try to be more respectful of one another. People can disagree on something and still have regard for the other person. Personally, I think it would be far more beneficial to study on where you’re going than to fuss and fight about where you came from

John S. said: Please try to be more respectful of one another.

John S. said: What good is your knowledge if you lack empathy for your fellow man...

John S. said: If people can't even have basic regard and respect for one another as human beings what is the purpose for your existence?

John S. said: I am not a regular contributor to Panda's Thumb but I do stop by and read it from time to time. ...

John S. said: ... It seems to me there is a lot of disagreement about the origin of man, ...

John S. said: ... but what bothers me is the hatred and despising many of you have for one another. ...

John S. said: ... If evolution is true, what are you evolving into? ...

John S. said: ... If people can't even have basic regard and respect for one another as human beings what is the purpose for your existence? ...

John S. said: ... What good is your knowledge if you lack empathy for your fellow man, whether you believe you evolved from nothing or whether you believe you were created by an omnipotent Creator? ...

John S. said: ... Your words tell a lot about who you are as a person. Please try to be more respectful of one another. People can disagree on something and still have regard for the other person. ...

Wayne Francis It seems to me there is a lot of disagreement whether or not Jesus was the son of God.

Wayne Francis It seems to me there is a lot of disagreement whether or not gravity exists.

John S. said: ... It seems to me there is a lot of disagreement about the origin of man, ...

John S. said: ... Personally, I think it would be far more beneficial to study on where you're going than to fuss and fight about where you came from.

I learned very early in my high school teaching career that when a student said, "If you respect my beliefs, then I'll respect yours," what she meant was "Never say anything that my religion doesn't agree with."

Just Bob said: I learned very early in my high school teaching career that when a student said, "If you respect my beliefs, then I'll respect yours," what she meant was "Never say anything that my religion doesn't agree with."

John S. said: I am not a regular contributor to Panda's Thumb but I do stop by and read it from time to time. It seems to me there is a lot of disagreement about the origin of man, but what bothers me is the hatred and despising many of you have for one another. If evolution is true, what are you evolving into? If people can't even have basic regard and respect for one another as human beings what is the purpose for your existence? What good is your knowledge if you lack empathy for your fellow man, whether you believe you evolved from nothing or whether you believe you were created by an omnipotent Creator? Your words tell a lot about who you are as a person. Please try to be more respectful of one another. People can disagree on something and still have regard for the other person. Personally, I think it would be far more beneficial to study on where you're going than to fuss and fight about where you came from.

I am not a regular contributor to Panda’s Thumb but I do stop by and read it from time to time. It seems to me there is a lot of disagreement about the origin of man, but what bothers me is the hatred and despising many of you have for one another. If evolution is true, what are you evolving into? If people can’t even have basic regard and respect for one another as human beings what is the purpose for your existence? What good is your knowledge if you lack empathy for your fellow man, whether you believe you evolved from nothing or whether you believe you were created by an omnipotent Creator? Your words tell a lot about who you are as a person. Please try to be more respectful of one another. People can disagree on something and still have regard for the other person. Personally, I think it would be far more beneficial to study on where you’re going than to fuss and fight about where you came from.

FL says: John S is making a lot of sense there, SWT.

whether you believe you evolved from nothing or whether you believe you were created by an omnipotent Creator

John S. said: Personally, I think it would be far more beneficial to study on where you're going than to fuss and fight about where you came from.

FL said: John S is making a lot of sense there, SWT. I'm honestly surprised (but not much), that a professing Christian like you would be unable to acknowledge or express any common ground with John's statements.

weldonelwood#ca23d said:

John S. said: Personally, I think it would be far more beneficial to study on where you're going than to fuss and fight about where you came from.

How can you know where you are going if you don't know where you came from? Because cultists insist on the literal truth of their myths, they have serious misconceptions about where humanity should be going.

What an interesting response to my comments yesterday, however not surprising just dissappointing. Let me respond to just a few. First, I don't have a lot of time to debate. I wish I did. I am studying biomedical technology during the day and work in the evenings. Mrg says that creationists come here to look for a fight. Maybe some do but not all. Joe observes my comments were in the middle of a calm discussion. True and good observation Joe. But thats when you deal with things. If you tell a man to calm down when he's screaming in your face its like throwing gas on the fire. Eric says we're apes. Sorry Eric, I disagree. Maybe we act like apes at times but I believe we're made in the image of God with an eternal soul. You can disagree. Harold says some truthful things. Wayneefrancis, I don't want anyone to go to hell. If God let his only begotten son die on Calvary to keep us from going there it must be an awful place.Scienceavenger abbreviates his profanity but asks an honest question. How does a professional deal with or respond to such people. You ignor ignorance. You set your facts in order and the truth will stand without any help. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. Good day.

John, from what we've seen of literally all of the creationists who come here, they all come here to pick fights, ridicule us for not reading the Bible word for word literally, and tell us with immense satisfaction about how we're all going to go burn (and be raped) in Hell for all eternity for not worshiping them as the Godhead.

You still refuse to explain to us why we must be forced to respect such people, as well as unreasonably doubt our own knowledge.

Just to give you, yourself, peace of mind? Isn't it very selfish and unChristian of you to insist that we allow people to work injustice on us, simply because you personally dislike it that we resist the promotion and exaltation of stupidity as piety?

John S. said: Mrg says that creationists come here to look for a fight. Maybe some do but not all.

"I don’t want anyone to go to hell. If God let his only begotten son die on Calvary to keep us from going there it must be an awful place."

There's that God of Very Limited Powers again. If he REALLY didn't want us to go there, he could, you know, just close down the place. Hang up a "closed for business" sign. He's GOD, right? But instead he has to have his son (which is confusingly himself) killed--which apparently hasn't worked for keeping billions from going to hell. As a matter of fact, it has provided ANOTHER reason to send people to hell--for not believing in Jesus.

Sorry, but if I believed in an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent god, she would BE those things, and not limited and perverse, as your seems to be.

PS: I respect your right to believe what you want. But I don't respect your belief.

John S. said: Eric says we're apes. Sorry Eric, I disagree. Maybe we act like apes at times but I believe we're made in the image of God with an eternal soul.

John S. said: ... Eric says we're apes. Sorry Eric, I disagree. Maybe we act like apes at times but I believe we're made in the image of God with an eternal soul. You can disagree. ....

John S. said: Eric says we're apes. Sorry Eric, I disagree. Maybe we act like apes at times but I believe we're made in the image of God with an eternal soul. You can disagree. ... You set your facts in order and the truth will stand without any help. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. Good day.

John S. said: Eric says we're apes. Sorry Eric, I disagree. Maybe we act like apes at times but I believe we're made in the image of God with an eternal soul. You can disagree.

Scienceavenger abbreviates his profanity but asks an honest question. How does a professional deal with or respond to such people. You ignor ignorance. You set your facts in order and the truth will stand without any help. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. Good day.

More accurately, humans are primates which includes all the other apes alive today.

In that sense, there isn't really a lot of difference.

In fact, humans and chimpanzees are so close that it's thought they could actually interbreed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee#Feasibility

Thanks for answering the easy question John S., but you failed to answer the hard one:

"...does it demonstrate a basic regard and respect for one another as human beings to accuse [scientists] of being incompetent, or unaware of basic facts in their field, or of participating in a grand conspiracy to hide The Truth ™, solely on the basis of your own ignorance of said field..."

Since you have already engaged in that yourself, I can see why you'd prefer not to answer, but then, you are all for calm, rational, respectful discourse, right? I contend that you have broken your own rule in doing so. You have NOT demonstrated basic regard and respect for others as human beings.

“I don’t want anyone to go to hell. If God let his only begotten son die on Calvary to keep us from going there it must be an awful place.”

Science Avenger said: Thanks for answering the easy question John S., but you failed to answer the hard one: "...does it demonstrate a basic regard and respect for one another as human beings to accuse [scientists] of being incompetent, or unaware of basic facts in their field, or of participating in a grand conspiracy to hide The Truth ™, solely on the basis of your own ignorance of said field..." Since you have already engaged in that yourself, I can see why you'd prefer not to answer, but then, you are all for calm, rational, respectful discourse, right? I contend that you have broken your own rule in doing so. You have NOT demonstrated basic regard and respect for others as human beings.

FL said:

“I don’t want anyone to go to hell. If God let his only begotten son die on Calvary to keep us from going there it must be an awful place.”

Ohhhhhh boy, Stanton ain't gonna like that kind of talk....

Science Avenger said: Thanks for answering the easy question John S., but you failed to answer the hard one:

...does it demonstrate a basic regard and respect for one another as human beings to accuse [scientists] of being incompetent, or unaware of basic facts in their field, or of participating in a grand conspiracy to hide The Truth ™, solely on the basis of your own ignorance of said field...

Since you have already engaged in that yourself, I can see why you'd prefer not to answer, but then, you are all for calm, rational, respectful discourse, right? I contend that you have broken your own rule in doing so. You have NOT demonstrated basic regard and respect for others as human beings.

John S. said: People can disagree on something and still have regard for the other person.

OT, There is a video on Little Green Footballs showing GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry telling a child that in Texas they teach both evolution and creationism and let the kids decide which is true.

weldonelwood#ca23d said: OT, There is a video on Little Green Footballs showing GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry telling a child that in Texas they teach both evolution and creationism and let the kids decide which is true.

weldonelwood#ca23d said: OT, There is a video on Little Green Footballs showing GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry telling a child that in Texas they teach both evolution and creationism and let the kids decide which is true.

apokryltaros said:

weldonelwood#ca23d said: OT, There is a video on Little Green Footballs showing GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry telling a child that in Texas they teach both evolution and creationism and let the kids decide which is true.

Why don't we also teach that cyanic acid is both toxic and edible, and let the kids decide which is true, too?

j. biggs said: NBC has already picked up the story. This cretin is obviously just what this country needs.

Why don’t we also teach that cyanic acid is both toxic and edible, and let the kids decide which is true, too?

mrg said:

j. biggs said: NBC has already picked up the story. This cretin is obviously just what this country needs.

Oh, if Perry runs Obama gets a second term, I'd take odds on it. The NBC article cited a tweet from Jon Huntsman: "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy." WILL the Republicans offer a candidate who doesn't sound barking mad? And, maybe more importantly, will the candidate be chained to a running mate who is barking mad?

Matt Young said:

Why don’t we also teach that cyanic acid is both toxic and edible, and let the kids decide which is true, too?

Both statements are true. In the same way, all mushrooms are edible; however, some will kill you if you eat them.

John S. said: Joe observes my comments were in the middle of a calm discussion. True and good observation Joe. But thats when you deal with things. If you tell a man to calm down when he's screaming in your face its like throwing gas on the fire.

weldonelwood#ca23d said: OT, There is a video on Little Green Footballs showing GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry telling a child that in Texas they teach both evolution and creationism and let the kids decide which is true.

John_S said: People who say "teach both evolution and creationism and let the kids decide which is true" almost never really mean that. What they mean is "teach evolution, then give creationists free whacks at it without allowing any similar attack on creationsim." If teachers were allowed equal time to attack Genesis, fundamentalists would be at the school door with torches and pitchforks, screaming "First Amendment".

Sylvilagus said:

Matt Young said:

Why don’t we also teach that cyanic acid is both toxic and edible, and let the kids decide which is true, too?

Both statements are true. In the same way, all mushrooms are edible; however, some will kill you if you eat them.

Really? My dictionary defines edible as "fit to eat"... are toxins really "fit to eat"?

Really? My dictionary defines edible as “fit to eat”… are toxins really “fit to eat”?

It depends on which mushroom we’re talking about.

Matt Young said:

Really? My dictionary defines edible as “fit to eat”… are toxins really “fit to eat”?

It depends on which mushroom we’re talking about.

You guys are solemn.

j. biggs said:

weldonelwood#ca23d said: OT, There is a video on Little Green Footballs showing GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry telling a child that in Texas they teach both evolution and creationism and let the kids decide which is true.

NBC has already picked up the story. This cretin is obviously just what this country needs.

Thank you, Henry. Me, I prefer the following:

"Damn John Jay! Damn everyone that won't damn John Jay! Damn everyone that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning John Jay!" - The Jeffersonians.

FL said:

“I don’t want anyone to go to hell. If God let his only begotten son die on Calvary to keep us from going there it must be an awful place.”

Sylvilagus said: Really? My dictionary defines edible as "fit to eat"... are toxins really "fit to eat"?

Dave Luckett said: Thank you, Henry. Me, I prefer the following: "Damn John Jay! Damn everyone that won't damn John Jay! Damn everyone that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning John Jay!" - The Jeffersonians.

I am of course happy that Calvin pulled his tent plugs and left Europe but the world might have been a better place and I even happier if he'd capsized.

Dave Luckett said: Henry, doesn't it strike you as the least bit odd that although all the gospels say that Jesus appeared after death, all of them give totally different accounts of what those appearances were, and when and where? None of them corroborate any of the others about those appearances. Because that's how it strikes me. As odd. Very odd. And then there's that forty days business. You do know forty was a magic number, don't you? It had a narrative significance. Forty days fasting in the wilderness. Forty thieves. The rain lasts forty days and forty nights; the spies take forty days to scout the Land of Canaan. Many other examples. The fact that it turns up here looks suspicious - as if the people telling the story were saying, "This has magic significance, it's a magical story." Maybe it just so happens that none of the Gospel writers decided to write of the same events as any of the others. Maybe, just by sheer chance, the period between the resurrection and the ascension just happened to be forty days. But it's still odd, wouldn't you say?

Henry, it's plain that you're not willing or able to treat historical materials as historical materials.

Yes, there's some overlap. I mentioned it earlier. But each of the Gospels tells different non-overlapping stories and it is these stories that are told specifically, at length, with detail, while the overlap is slight, vague and unspecific. That's odd, or it would be if the stories were all direct observations of real events.

The most reasonable explanation for it is that different writers heard different accounts from different people who were already creating narrative in different directions and traditions, a generation or so later. Historians look for effects like these when criticising their materials. It's absolutely commonplace for all human oral transmission. We tell stories. We make stuff up to tell them. It's part of being human.

The material in Mark after 16:8 is not original, but was added later. This is known because the earliest texts of Mark don't have it, and all early texts have different versions of it, if it's there at all.

I love how Biblical literalists leave stuff out and put stuff in to suit themselves, too. They are participating in the very same process, only they don't usually have the wit to notice it.

Didn't you read 1 Corinthians 15:2, where Paul says where he got the "five hundred people at one time" story from? Paul says plainly that it was "a tradition" he received, and he doesn't say who passed it to him, or where, or when. That is, it's a story he heard, and he is saying plainly that he can't vouch for it himself.

That's what the man said, and you're treating it as if it were an objective account at first hand. Why? The Gospel writers don't. They wrote after Paul's letters were written, and they don't mention these "five hundred" people at all. If it had happened, don't you think they'd have mentioned it, too?

Oh, silly me. There I am, using the word "think" in a reply to a fundamentalist.

Oh, and Patrick Henry. He was talking out of his ass. Shame on him.

The United States was founded on the principles it says it was founded on, not on anything in the Christian gospel. "We hold these truths to be self-evident". Self-evident, not written down in some Scripture somewhere.

And what truths are these? "That all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights... That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Creator, Henry. Not Jesus. Not the Abrahamic God. All men, meaning "all humans", not Christians. From the consent of the governed, not because God says.

It was not Christians affording protection to heathens that created the United States. That's pernicious tosh at best, if not downright lies, and Patrick Henry should have known better. It was a free people agreeing among themselves that they would respect and protect the rights of all of them. All, Henry. Not those who read the Bible. Not those who go to church on Sundays or any other day. Not those who believe in God. All the people, mutually. "We, the people." Not "we, the Christians".

You got something to say about that, Henry?

Dave Luckett said: Oh, and Patrick Henry. He was talking out of his ass. Shame on him. The United States was founded on the principles it says it was founded on, not on anything in the Christian gospel. "We hold these truths to be self-evident". Self-evident, not written down in some Scripture somewhere. And what truths are these? "That all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights... That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Creator, Henry. Not Jesus. Not the Abrahamic God. All men, meaning "all humans", not Christians. From the consent of the governed, not because God says. It was not Christians affording protection to heathens that created the United States. That's pernicious tosh at best, if not downright lies, and Patrick Henry should have known better. It was a free people agreeing among themselves that they would respect and protect the rights of all of them. All, Henry. Not those who read the Bible. Not those who go to church on Sundays or any other day. Not those who believe in God. All the people, mutually. "We, the people." Not "we, the Christians". You got something to say about that, Henry?

Let me ask a question of all the atheists or agnostics? Where do get your moral code? How do you determine whats right or wrong? Since you believe that man is an animal what is wrong then with murder or rape or not respecting a scientist? I'm thankful for scientists and every professional who is gifted in the area of their expertise. I'm no expert on science, don't claim to be. But science is only a very small part of life. If mankind got here by evolution and there is no God, no life after death, no hope, there's not really much purpose for your existence is there? Christianity answers all those questions for me and gives me a reason for living.

j. biggs said: I see very little difference between Perry and G. W. Bush other than the fact that Perry is even more aggressive in his religious stance.

Henry said: Any word on Patrick Henry?

John S. said: Let me ask a question of all the atheists or agnostics? Where do get your moral code? How do you determine whats right or wrong?

Since you believe that man is an animal what is wrong then with murder or rape or not respecting a scientist?

I'm thankful for scientists and every professional who is gifted in the area of their expertise. I'm no expert on science, don't claim to be. But science is only a very small part of life.

If mankind got here by evolution and there is no God, no life after death, no hope, there's not really much purpose for your existence is there? Christianity answers all those questions for me and gives me a reason for living.

btw, in answer to the question of the title: No.

John S. said: Let me ask a question of all the atheists or agnostics? Where do get your moral code? How do you determine whats right or wrong?

Since you believe that man is an animal what is wrong then with murder or rape or not respecting a scientist?

... science is only a very small part of life.

If mankind got here by evolution and there is no God, no life after death, no hope, there's not really much purpose for your existence is there?

Christianity answers all those questions for me and gives me a reason for living.

John S. said: Since you believe that man is an animal what is wrong then with murder or rape or not respecting a scientist? ...Christianity answers all those questions for me and gives me a reason for living.

John S. said: Let me ask a question of all the atheists or agnostics? Where do get your moral code? How do you determine whats right or wrong? Since you believe that man is an animal what is wrong then with murder or rape or not respecting a scientist? I'm thankful for scientists and every professional who is gifted in the area of their expertise. I'm no expert on science, don't claim to be. But science is only a very small part of life. If mankind got here by evolution and there is no God, no life after death, no hope, there's not really much purpose for your existence is there? Christianity answers all those questions for me and gives me a reason for living.

Where do get your moral code? How do you determine whats right or wrong?

John S. said: Let me ask a question of all the atheists or agnostics? Where do get your moral code? How do you determine whats right or wrong?

John S, I get my moral code from various sources, and I don't deny that one of these is the words of Jesus. But if you think that you got all yours there, you're only fooling yourself; or to put it better, you are unaware of your own mind and the history of your own society.

Do you think that Jesus would have approved of, say, patriotism? Before you answer, remember that the concept "nation" as a geographical entity hardly existed in his day. He was very much against private property and wealth altogether. What do you think he would have made of, say, the stockmarket? He was a first-century Jew. How about School proms? Football games? Going to the beach? Rock music? He made water into wine to celebrate a wedding. How do you think he'd have gone at, say, spring break? Or the Oktoberfest? He never read a novel in his life. Where do you think he would have drawn the line? Agatha Christie? Saul Bellow? D H Lawrence? Henry Miller? Philip Roth? What about the movies? Privacy? Size of government? Corporations as persons? Cosmetic surgery? The internet? No-fault divorce, with community property?

Don't tell me you get your attitudes on all those things, and many others, from him. It ain't so.

How do I know if what I do is right or wrong? I have empathy, agency and knowledge of consequence. I can work it out from that.

Purpose? You are proposing that purpose is something laid down by an outside party - God, in your case. I find that profoundly unsatisfactory. I'd rather find one for myself, and even if I couldn't find it, the search is itself far better for me than simple acquiesence in what I'm told. If I search, I grow, and I learn, if only about myself.

I have a reason for living - I like living. That's enough reason for me. Mostly, life is interesting and rewarding. I've just been listening to Bach's "Gloria" from the Mass in B-minor. That's a reward. So's 70% chocolate. So's having my son to dinner on Thursdays. So's working out a knotty plot problem. Those give meaning and purpose to me. Your religion, you say, gives you meaning and tells you what your purpose is. Bully for you. But you don't speak for me, and you're not entitled to assume that I don't have a life that's meaningful and purposeful if I don't share your religion, or any religion.

And that's what you're doing with, your "there’s not really much purpose for your existence is there?" You presume much too far, and in your presumption there's a strong strain of patronising and contempt. Both are insulting. You say you think we should all be more respectful of each other. The guy you say you follow recommended removing the large impediment to your own vision before attending to the lesser ones of others. Good advice, I think.

How do you determine whats right or wrong?

Rolf said:

How do you determine whats right or wrong?

This is as good an explanation as any of how and when morals entered the world - man becoming self-aware and capable of differentiating between right and wrong.

Maybe this is what John wants to hear (the last part, anyway):

Honesty and Moral Behavior

...among evolutionists. It must really irk creationists that the great majority of us "evolutionists" are basically upright, moral folks. We shouldn't be, because belief in evolution "destroys our faith in the Bible," so naturally we have "no moral guide" and "no fear of eternal damnation," and since "we think we came from monkeys," we see ourselves as "animals with no eternal souls." I'll confess it right now: my basically upright, honest, cleanly-lived life is all a sham. I'm part of the One World Government Evolutionist Conspiracy (OWGEC), and my apparent morality is merely a deception to lure unsuspecting young creationists over to the Dark Side! (And yes, I've signed Satan's black book, I have a barcode on my left arm [just like "Dr." Kent Hovind says] with which I pay for groceries, and I am in personal email contact daily with the Antichrist. I admit all that, so accuse me of something original.)

Of course there was a Fall. It came between Summer and Winter.

You guys are all way too uptight. I can't believe all the speculating,accusing,judging and everything else you come up with. Are you really scientists or shrinks? You don't even know me. I just asked a simple question and you go ballistic. Sheesh. Give me a break

John S. said: I just asked a simple question and you go ballistic. Sheesh. Give me a break

John S. said: You guys are all way too uptight. I can't believe all the speculating,accusing,judging and everything else you come up with. Are you really scientists or shrinks? You don't even know me. I just asked a simple question and you go ballistic. Sheesh. Give me a break

John S. said: You guys are all way too uptight. I can't believe all the speculating,accusing,judging and everything else you come up with. Are you really scientists or shrinks? You don't even know me. I just asked a simple question and you go ballistic. Sheesh. Give me a break

DS said:

John S. said: You guys are all way too uptight. I can't believe all the speculating,accusing,judging and everything else you come up with. Are you really scientists or shrinks? You don't even know me. I just asked a simple question and you go ballistic. Sheesh. Give me a break

No one has gone ballistic John. You must have misinterpreted our accurate assessment of your motives for posting here. Now, one last time, just to be fair, are you or are you not interested in the scientific evidence that humans are descended from apes? Do you or do you not admit that one does not have to believe in a god in order to behave morally and ethically? Yo can moan about civility all you want, but until you are willing to answer questions and examine evidence, all of your protestations ring hollow.

apokryltaros said: Well, you did whine and demand that we be grovelling doormats for all the Assholes and Lying Idiots For Jesus who come here picking fights, after all.

John S. said: Let me ask a question of all the atheists or agnostics? Where do get your moral code? How do you determine whats right or wrong?

Since you believe that man is an animal what is wrong then with murder or rape or not respecting a scientist?

If mankind got here by evolution and there is no God, no life after death, no hope, there's not really much purpose for your existence is there? Christianity answers all those questions for me and gives me a reason for living.

Let me ask a question of all the atheists or agnostics? Where do get your moral code? How do you determine whats right or wrong?

Since you believe that man is an animal what is wrong then with murder or rape or not respecting a scientist?

I’m thankful for scientists and every professional who is gifted in the area of their expertise. I’m no expert on science, don’t claim to be. But science is only a very small part of life.

If mankind got here by evolution and there is no God, no life after death, no hope, there’s not really much purpose for your existence is there?

Christianity answers all those questions for me and gives me a reason for living.

I'm not trying to convert anybody. I wish all people believed like I do about God but I'm not so naive to think thats realistic. I'm not trying to force religion on anybody. I couldn't if I wanted to. Don't judge every Christian by the few you have known. I'm basically trying to get insight into how you people think and you have given me that. Thank you and God bless you.

John S. said: Don't judge every Christian by the few you have known.

John S. said: If mankind got here by evolution and there is no God,

Christianity answers all those questions for me and gives me a reason for living.

John S. said: I'm not trying to convert anybody. I wish all people believed like I do about God but I'm not so naive to think thats realistic. I'm not trying to force religion on anybody. I couldn't if I wanted to. Don't judge every Christian by the few you have known. I'm basically trying to get insight into how you people think and you have given me that. Thank you and God bless you.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

John S. said: If mankind got here by evolution and there is no God,

And how does "there is no God" follow from "mankind got here by evolution"?

John S. said: I'm not trying to convert anybody. I wish all people believed like I do about God but I'm not so naive to think thats realistic. I'm not trying to force religion on anybody. I couldn't if I wanted to. Don't judge every Christian by the few you have known. I'm basically trying to get insight into how you people think and you have given me that. Thank you and God bless you.

John S. said: I'm not trying to convert anybody. I wish all people believed like I do about God but I'm not so naive to think thats realistic. I'm not trying to force religion on anybody. I couldn't if I wanted to. Don't judge every Christian by the few you have known. I'm basically trying to get insight into how you people think and you have given me that. Thank you and God bless you.

Henry the delusional lying theocrat said:

Dave Luckett said: Thank you, Henry. Me, I prefer the following: "Damn John Jay! Damn everyone that won't damn John Jay! Damn everyone that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning John Jay!" - The Jeffersonians.

Any word on Patrick Henry? It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here. Patrick Henry

phantomreader42 said: As I'm sure will surprise nobody, this is a fake quote, made up by lying theocrats as an excuse to steal tax money to forcibly indoctrinate children into their death cult. Because of things like this, every time I see a quote even remotely favorable to religion from any of the founding fathers, I assume it's phony until proven otherwise. Now, Henry, isn't that imaginary god of your supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness?

phantomreader42 said: As I'm sure will surprise nobody, this is a fake quote,

John S. said: I'm not trying to convert anybody...

I don't think he was trying to convert anyone. He was just mooning the audience.

apokryltaros said: John, from what we've seen of literally all of the creationists who come here, they all come here to pick fights, ridicule us for not reading the Bible word for word literally, and tell us with immense satisfaction about how we're all going to go burn (and be raped) in Hell for all eternity for not worshiping them as the Godhead.

John S. said: You guys are all way too uptight. I can't believe all the speculating,accusing,judging and everything else you come up with. Are you really scientists or shrinks? You don't even know me. I just asked a simple question and you go ballistic. Sheesh. Give me a break

I hereby apologise to the memory of Patrick Henry. He never uttered the words attributed to him by the other Henry. My "shame on him" was unwarranted, and I withdraw it.

I committed the primary and elementary error of trusting the assertion of a creationist. Shame on me.

Yo can moan about civility all you want, but until you are willing to answer questions and examine evidence, all of your protestations ring hollow.

And how does “there is no God” follow from “mankind got here by evolution”?

"In the end, the absence of evidence for a godly hand in evolution is evidence of godly absence, for evolution and selection show precisely the characteristics they would have if they were purely material, mindless, and purposeless processes. There is no sign of orthogenesis, directed evolution, or a one-way march to Homo sapiens. There is no more evidence that god directed evolution than there is that god keeps the engine working in your car—and yet nobody keeps an open mind about the possibility that god is pushing their pistons. To withhold from students the evidence that natural selection is purposeless—lacking direction, guidance, or goals—is to cheat them of the very essence of that process." --Evolutionist Jerry Coyne, taken from his essay "Natural selection and evolution: material, blind, mindless, and purposeless", located at his blog WhyEvolutionIsTrue.

Many Christians, of course, prefer St. Augustine's approaches to scriptural interpretation and theology to those of Coyne.

John_S, I hope don't don't make the same mistake Floyd Lee does. Contrary to Mr. Lee's baseless assertions, science / biology / the study of reality is not a religion.
There's no holy writ, no saints, no saviours (Darwin got stuff wrong, everyone admits it). Just men and women who've actually, you know, done the work.

If you disagree with Coyne's observations, get in the lab and prove him wrong. Reciting from ancient books of magic is simply not evidence.

BTW, Floyd's been on and on about evolution (the fact, and the theory that best explains the fact) being incompatible with Christianity for some time now. By Christianity, of course, he means The Floyd Lee Infallible, Absolutely Correct Interpretation of The Bible, Which Is Completely Literal, Except When It Isn't.

Somehow the majority of Christians all over the world never got the memo.

Yawn.

Further, each and every one of FL's "five ways" has been comprehensively refuted here, and he has simply ignored the refutations, waited a while, and then repeated the assertions. This is in an intensely dishonest attempt to give the impression that he has an unassailed position, when he hasn't got a leg to stand on. But as we have seen right here on this thread, an ethical creationist is a contradiction in terms.

Henry said:

Dave Luckett said: Henry, doesn't it strike you as the least bit odd that although all the gospels say that Jesus appeared after death, all of them give totally different accounts of what those appearances were, and when and where? None of them corroborate any of the others about those appearances. Because that's how it strikes me. As odd. Very odd. And then there's that forty days business. You do know forty was a magic number, don't you? It had a narrative significance. Forty days fasting in the wilderness. Forty thieves. The rain lasts forty days and forty nights; the spies take forty days to scout the Land of Canaan. Many other examples. The fact that it turns up here looks suspicious - as if the people telling the story were saying, "This has magic significance, it's a magical story." Maybe it just so happens that none of the Gospel writers decided to write of the same events as any of the others. Maybe, just by sheer chance, the period between the resurrection and the ascension just happened to be forty days. But it's still odd, wouldn't you say?

Actually, there is some overlap. Mark 16:12 mentions two who walked with Jesus. Luke 24:13-33 gives a detailed account of Mark's version. It's not magic that Jesus stayed 40 days after His resurrection. He needed to reinforce His teachings and demonstrate that He fulfilled Old Testament prophecies concerning Himself. Plus, 40 days is ample time to show Himself to His followers, including 500 people at one time.[I Cor. 15:6] All four Gospels mention Mary Magdalene.

stevaroni said:

FL said:

“I don’t want anyone to go to hell. If God let his only begotten son die on Calvary to keep us from going there it must be an awful place.”

Sigh... Once again, slowly, FL. Jesus did not die. According to your own Christian mythology Jesus is simply one facet of the holy trinity. Father/son/spirit, one thing. They are all one. They are all God. They are all immortal. They are all omniscient. They all see the future. You can't kill God. Ergo, you can't kill Jesus. It's not death if you can't die and you know you can't die and it's not even a theoretical possibility because you're already seen the future and you know you don't die. It may be pantomime or Kabuki theater, or maybe condescension to the masses, but it's not dying. If you or I got crucified by the Romans it would have been a horrible, torturous, humiliating way to die. And we would stay dead, because that's what always happens when you brutalize someone so much that that you eventually break some vital system. But if you're an immortal being for whom it's only an inconvenient afternoon, after which you're going to be chillin' at Dad's place all weekend before you're back at work Monday morning, it's a whole different deal. If you know that no matter what they do to you you're going to be able to stop it with a moment's thought, and no matter what damage they do you can have a brand new body with no more effort than humans slip in to a new pair of shoes, it's a whole different deal. If you make a big deal about the whole thing, but you're never in more danger than a father on the beach getting "buried" in sand by his three-ear-old, it's a whole different deal. No matter what the Jesus of the Bible did, or didn't do, he only died if he wasn't really God.

Henry said: Maybe I missed it , but I don't see any mention at all in your comments that there were some overlap in the Gospel accounts.

John says Jesus turned up by the Sea of Galilee. Matthew says he met the disciples on a mountain. Luke says the road to Emmaus. Each of these appearances is mentioned by only one of them. Mark originally didn’t say anything - the last twelve verses of Mark are a later addition, by an unknown hand. The other three say he appeared to the disciples in a room, but only John has the doubting Thomas story. Luke says that the two travellers to Emmaus returned to Jerusalem and found the disciples already believing in the Resurrection; Mark’s addendum contradicts this.

Oh, and by the way, Henry, I've apologised for believing that Patrick Henry uttered that false "quote" you provided. Trusting your word is a mistake I won't make again. Are you going to apologise for repeating an untruth here, or doesn't it matter to you?

Many Christians, of course, prefer St. Augustine’s approaches to scriptural interpretation and theology to those of Coyne.

Further, each and every one of FL’s “five ways” has been comprehensively refuted here

FL said:

Many Christians, of course, prefer St. Augustine’s approaches to scriptural interpretation and theology to those of Coyne.

Well, given that St. Augie wrote that the earth was less than 6000 years old, and that the global Noahic Flood literally took place in Earth history, I can see why many Christians would like him.... FL

St. Augustine of Hippo wisely wrote: If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion." [1 Timothy 1.7]

Trot them out again. I'll shoot them down again, and I don't have to go outside traditional Christian theology to do it.

FL said:

Further, each and every one of FL’s “five ways” has been comprehensively refuted here

Really? Don't forget Dave, erroneous claims like that one can be checked against the record, both on PT and ATBC (for the readers, the ATBC debate ran for 100 pages). Even now, since that marathon event, there has been NO shortage of print and online documentation from either Christian or Evolutionist sources to show that evolution is incompatible with Christianity. Plus, there's no shortage of NEW public hooly-magoos (such as the Bruce Waltke controversy, and the totally-messed-up "America's Evolutionary Evangelist" Michael Dowd). This kind of mess quickly and clearly proves what happens when Christians drink the Evolution-Kool-Aid. And now you've got Dr. Jerry Coyne and Dr. Albert Mohler racing each other every month, just to see who can report the next big Evolution-Incompatibility scoop on their blog. *** Sheesh Dave, if I had known the Evolution-Incompatibility situation was so totally wrecked when I first came to Pandasthumb years ago, I probably wouldn't have bothered commenting on any other topic. It's like shooting fish in the primordial barrel. FL

Paul Burnett said:

John S. said: Please try to be more respectful of one another.

This is a science forum. We are occasionally infested by scientifically illiterate people who apparently delight in their ignorance. Rather than asking legitimate questions, they attempt to derail the discussion and distract the sane participants. Why should we be respectful of saboteurs?

apokryltaros said:

FL said: John S is making a lot of sense there, SWT. I'm honestly surprised (but not much), that a professing Christian like you would be unable to acknowledge or express any common ground with John's statements.

John isn't making any sense: he's whining/demanding that we give respect to people who have no intention of carrying on civil conversations, people who revel and wallow in their sacred stupidity. That, and you, yourself, FL, have never given us any respect, ever, nor have you ever bothered to give us a reason to give you any respect to begin with, other than your numerous hints and taunts about how we're all going to be buttraped in Hell by God for not believing you.

FL said:

Many Christians, of course, prefer St. Augustine’s approaches to scriptural interpretation and theology to those of Coyne.

Well, given that St. Augie wrote that the earth was less than 6000 years old, and that the global Noahic Flood literally took place in Earth history, I can see why many Christians would like him.... FL

Wouldn’t your implication that Saint Augustine said this directly contradict what Saint Augustine warned about pinning one’s Christian faith and the Bible to profoundly stupid, reality-denying proclamations?

..."(Reckoning) by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed." (St. Augie, City of God, book 12, ch. 10)

St. Augustine is often cited by theistic evolutionists as a theologian whose mindset was hospitable to the modern neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. Unfortunately, theistic evolutionists who make these claims are guilty of the same carelessness as Dr. David Bentley Hart: they haven’t read St. Augustine’s own writings on the subject. Instead, they’ve read essays and scholarly commentaries instead of sitting down and reading the texts themselves. If they did that, they would discover that St. Augustine expressly taught that the world was 6,000 years old (City of God, Book XII, chapter 12); that creatures of all kinds were created instantly at the beginning of time; that Adam and Eve were historical persons; that Paradise was a literal place; that the patriarch Methusaleh actually lived to the age of 969; that there was a literal ark, and that the Flood covered the whole earth; and that he vigorously defended all of these doctrines against skeptics in the fourth century (yes, they existed back then, too), who scoffed at them. The curious reader can confirm what I have read by consulting St. Augustine’s City of God Book XIII and Book XV. --taken from V.J. Torley at Uncommon Descent

FL said:

Wouldn’t your implication that Saint Augustine said this directly contradict what Saint Augustine warned about pinning one’s Christian faith and the Bible to profoundly stupid, reality-denying proclamations?

Yes, Stanton, that particular "implication" DOES directly contradict evolutionist co-options of Augie's "pinning" statement. Good perception on your part; let's hope some other Christians catch it too.

I mean, FL, why else would you bring up that St Augustine believed that the world is less than 6,000 years old, and that a Great Deluge occurred, other than to directly imply that we Christians must believe that, right or wrong, or be sent to Hell where God will buttrape us with demons and fire for your own amusement for all eternity?

apokryltaros said: I mean, FL, why else would you bring up that St Augustine believed that the world is less than 6,000 years old, and that a Great Deluge occurred, other than to directly imply that we Christians must believe that, right or wrong, or be sent to Hell where God will buttrape us with demons and fire for your own amusement for all eternity?

"Error... Error... Error... Must sterilize..."

FL Thank you for your kind words. In answer to the title question I must agree with Paul in 2 Thess. 2:3 about the "falling away". I believe we're seeing it. Have to go, too much work piling up.

John S. said: FL Thank you for your kind words. In answer to the title question I must agree with Paul in 2 Thess. 2:3 about the "falling away". I believe we're seeing it. Have to go, too much work piling up.

John S. said: FL Thank you for your kind words. In answer to the title question I must agree with Paul in 2 Thess. 2:3 about the "falling away". I believe we're seeing it. Have to go, too much work piling up.

phantomreader42 said:

John S. said: FL Thank you for your kind words. In answer to the title question I must agree with Paul in 2 Thess. 2:3 about the "falling away". I believe we're seeing it. Have to go, too much work piling up.

Thank you for your admission that you never had the slightest interest in an honest discussion. You're a pathological liar, just like every creationist on earth.

Henry said: I think you missed the concept of the Incarnation, the second person of the Trinity taking on human flesh so that He is both fully man and fully God.

To wit... In one lecture, he said the Catholic Church had appealed to the religious beliefs of peasants to get them to oppose an 18th century emperor who was trying to improve their conditions. "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth," Corbett said.

The money quote, with a shout out to the FSM... While discussing clashes between science and religion in the 16th century, Corbett said there was as much evidence that God created the universe "as there is that there is a giant spaghetti monster living behind the moon who did it." When a student asked him about a conflict with a colleague who wanted to teach creationism, Corbett said he said he had not wanted to let the teacher "propagandize kids with this religious, superstitious nonsense.

FL said:

Wouldn’t your implication that Saint Augustine said this directly contradict what Saint Augustine warned about pinning one’s Christian faith and the Bible to profoundly stupid, reality-denying proclamations?

Yes, Stanton, that particular "implication" DOES directly contradict evolutionist co-options of Augie's "pinning" statement. Good perception on your part; let's hope some other Christians catch it too.

stevaroni said:

Henry said: I think you missed the concept of the Incarnation, the second person of the Trinity taking on human flesh so that He is both fully man and fully God.

No, I got that. It's just that I would imagine the whole "and fully God" part tends to dominate one's frame of reference. Compared to being able to call an entire universe into existence on a whim, being human adds... well... probably not all that much to the resume. It's kind of like the divine equivalent of one of those correspondence school awarding Stephen Hawking an honorary degree in art. Nice gesture, but.... well, you're God. Aside from the possible interest in a new point of view, what does adding humanity really give a divine being? The ability to experience hemorrhoids first hand? And frankly, since you are God, if mere mortals like the Romans go and crucify you, it's only because you damn well let them. From your divine point of view it's probably about as significant as Arnold Schwarzenegger allowing his three-year-old son to "beat" him in arm wrestling.

Dave Luckett said: Oh, and by the way, Henry, I've apologised for believing that Patrick Henry uttered that false "quote" you provided. Trusting your word is a mistake I won't make again. Are you going to apologise for repeating an untruth here, or doesn't it matter to you?

Henry said:

Dave Luckett said: Oh, and by the way, Henry, I've apologised for believing that Patrick Henry uttered that false "quote" you provided. Trusting your word is a mistake I won't make again. Are you going to apologise for repeating an untruth here, or doesn't it matter to you?

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/patrick_henry_quote_9fa21 Ok, that quote falls under the unconfirmed category.

As the novice custodian at the air terminal said, "Man, there are too many Johns around here!" [And too many Henries, but I can't make a pun with "Henry".]

The Ninth District court ruled for the teacher, 3-0.

Dave Luckett said:

Henry said:

Dave Luckett said: Oh, and by the way, Henry, I've apologised for believing that Patrick Henry uttered that false "quote" you provided. Trusting your word is a mistake I won't make again. Are you going to apologise for repeating an untruth here, or doesn't it matter to you?

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/patrick_henry_quote_9fa21 Ok, that quote falls under the unconfirmed category.

So the answer to that would be "no, I won't apologise, because it really doesn't matter to me." Figured that. Just checking.

Dave Luckett said: Henry, it's plain that you're not willing or able to treat historical materials as historical materials. Yes, there's some overlap. I mentioned it earlier. But each of the Gospels tells different non-overlapping stories and it is these stories that are told specifically, at length, with detail, while the overlap is slight, vague and unspecific. That's odd, or it would be if the stories were all direct observations of real events. The most reasonable explanation for it is that different writers heard different accounts from different people who were already creating narrative in different directions and traditions, a generation or so later. Historians look for effects like these when criticising their materials. It's absolutely commonplace for all human oral transmission. We tell stories. We make stuff up to tell them. It's part of being human. The material in Mark after 16:8 is not original, but was added later. This is known because the earliest texts of Mark don't have it, and all early texts have different versions of it, if it's there at all. I love how Biblical literalists leave stuff out and put stuff in to suit themselves, too. They are participating in the very same process, only they don't usually have the wit to notice it. Didn't you read 1 Corinthians 15:2, where Paul says where he got the "five hundred people at one time" story from? Paul says plainly that it was "a tradition" he received, and he doesn't say who passed it to him, or where, or when. That is, it's a story he heard, and he is saying plainly that he can't vouch for it himself. That's what the man said, and you're treating it as if it were an objective account at first hand. Why? The Gospel writers don't. They wrote after Paul's letters were written, and they don't mention these "five hundred" people at all. If it had happened, don't you think they'd have mentioned it, too? Oh, silly me. There I am, using the word "think" in a reply to a fundamentalist.

Even now, since that marathon event, there has been NO shortage of print and online documentation from either Christian or Evolutionist sources to show that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

Dave Luckett said:

Henry said:

Dave Luckett said: Oh, and by the way, Henry, I've apologised for believing that Patrick Henry uttered that false "quote" you provided. Trusting your word is a mistake I won't make again. Are you going to apologise for repeating an untruth here, or doesn't it matter to you?

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/patrick_henry_quote_9fa21 Ok, that quote falls under the unconfirmed category.

So the answer to that would be "no, I won't apologise, because it really doesn't matter to me." Figured that. Just checking.

harold said:

The Ninth District court ruled for the teacher, 3-0.

This was not a victory for constitutional rights or teaching of science, though. It was a terrible decision. Their claim is that teachers have the right to insult religious opinions in public schools. The rather absurd justification is the tenuous claim that insulting one religion doesn't amount to implicitly endorsing others. (My paraphrase.) In this case, a socially strong religious belief was insulted, but the precedent has been set. The Freshwater's of tomorrow can join in the bullying of minority students from their position of authority at the head of the class.

Henry said:

Dave Luckett said:

Henry said:

Dave Luckett said: Oh, and by the way, Henry, I've apologised for believing that Patrick Henry uttered that false "quote" you provided. Trusting your word is a mistake I won't make again. Are you going to apologise for repeating an untruth here, or doesn't it matter to you?

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/patrick_henry_quote_9fa21 Ok, that quote falls under the unconfirmed category.

So the answer to that would be "no, I won't apologise, because it really doesn't matter to me." Figured that. Just checking.

Ok, I apologize.

Henry said:

Dave Luckett said: Didn't you read 1 Corinthians 15:2, where Paul says where he got the "five hundred people at one time" story from? Paul says plainly that it was "a tradition" he received, and he doesn't say who passed it to him, or where, or when. That is, it's a story he heard, and he is saying plainly that he can't vouch for it himself. That's what the man said, and you're treating it as if it were an objective account at first hand. Why? The Gospel writers don't. They wrote after Paul's letters were written, and they don't mention these "five hundred" people at all. If it had happened, don't you think they'd have mentioned it, too?

Sorry, Dave, Paul was a contemporary of most if not all of the eyewitnesses. He was Saul of Tarsus, the persecutor of the early Church. He received the gospel [I Cor 15:1], not tradition. Acts 9 records his conversion experience which included time with the disciples at Damascus [v 19] and he started immediately preaching Christ [v 20]. Two of the gospel writers, Matthew and John, were part of the original 12 disciples so they had first hand experience, but as John wrote at the end of his gospel, Jesus did so many things that the world can't contain all the books if every deed was recorded.

phantomreader42 said:

Dave Luckett said:

Henry said:

Dave Luckett said: Oh, and by the way, Henry, I've apologised for believing that Patrick Henry uttered that false "quote" you provided. Trusting your word is a mistake I won't make again. Are you going to apologise for repeating an untruth here, or doesn't it matter to you?

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/patrick_henry_quote_9fa21 Ok, that quote falls under the unconfirmed category.

So the answer to that would be "no, I won't apologise, because it really doesn't matter to me." Figured that. Just checking.

It's more "no, I'll never apologize for lying, because lying is not a sin but a sacred duty to my god".

(Dave Luckett) He says plainly that he was not a witness...

(Apostle Paul) 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. (1 Cor. 15:7-8

Sorry, Dave, Paul was a contemporary of most if not all of the eyewitnesses.

You reckon God gave you your brain, Henry. According to the Parable of the Talents, He expects you to use it. Use it, already.

FL said: Wow. Tough preachin' there, coming from somebody with absolutely ZERO personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

FL said:

You reckon God gave you your brain, Henry. According to the Parable of the Talents, He expects you to use it. Use it, already.

Wow. Tough preachin' there, coming from somebody with absolutely ZERO personal relationship with Jesus Christ. FL

apokryltaros said: Then tell us why lying to us, ridiculing us because we do not believe your lies and then telling us that we're going to go to Hell to be buttraped by God are signs of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

mrg said:

apokryltaros said: Then tell us why lying to us, ridiculing us because we do not believe your lies and then telling us that we're going to go to Hell to be buttraped by God are signs of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

For the gigglies, Stanton. He's just mooning you.

apokryltaros said: I know that, and you know that. But apparently, FL does not know that. He denies that he's mooning us, instead claiming that this is somehow "civil behavior."

FL said: Wow. Tough preachin' there, coming from somebody with absolutely ZERO personal relationship with Jesus Christ. FL

FL said: Wow. Tough preachin' there, coming from somebody with absolutely ZERO personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

And this rejoinder is relevant and responsive how? And you have personal knowledge of this by what means?

FL said: *snipping useless prattle* Does this explanation clarify things a little? FL

Enough bickering, I think. If you do not have anything substantive to say, please keep it to yourself. Remember: When you argue with a troll, soon there are 2 trolls.

Matt Young said: Enough bickering, I think. If you do not have anything substantive to say, please keep it to yourself. Remember: When you argue with a troll, soon there are 2 trolls.

No, it isn't a "both-and" situation. FL simply refuses to accept his own Scripture, because it is in this case inconvenient to him. At 1 Corinthians 15:2 ff, Paul states plainly that he was not an eyewitness, except to the one appearance of Jesus to him. He does not even say that he interviewed any of the 'five hundred'.

The Gospels do not mention this 'five hundred'. They were written after Paul's letters and Paul stands behind two of the Gospel writers, Mark and Luke. Why do they not? Why do they all give accounts of different events? Why is the overlap between their accounts so small, so unspecific, and so slight?

Blethering about irrelevancies, such as whether Paul was a contemporary, does nothing to answer these questions. There is an answer, and it isn't "They're all correct, and they just happen to have decided to say different things."

John S. said: Let me ask a question of all the atheists or agnostics? Where do get your moral code? ...

... Where do get your moral code? How do you determine whats right or wrong? ...

... Since you believe that man is an animal what is wrong then with murder or rape or not respecting a scientist? ...

... I'm thankful for scientists and every professional who is gifted in the area of their expertise. I'm no expert on science, don't claim to be. But science is only a very small part of life. I ...

science The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

... If mankind got here by evolution and there is no God, ...

... no life after death, no hope, there's not really much purpose for your existence is there? Christianity answers all those questions for me and gives me a reason for living.

mrg said:

John S. said: Let me ask a question of all the atheists or agnostics? Where do get your moral code? How do you determine whats right or wrong?

Let me ask you this: where do you get your traffic regulations? How do you determine which side of the road you want to drive on? If it wasn't for Kop, the god of traffic regulations, wouldn't we drive on any side of the road we felt like, switching back and forth if we felt like it? Why would people who didn't believe in Kop care about traffic regulations?

John S. said: You guys are all way too uptight. I can't believe all the speculating,accusing,judging and everything else you come up with. Are you really scientists or shrinks? You don't even know me. I just asked a simple question and you go ballistic. Sheesh. Give me a break

Dave Luckett said:

Henry said:

Dave Luckett said: Didn't you read 1 Corinthians 15:2, where Paul says where he got the "five hundred people at one time" story from? Paul says plainly that it was "a tradition" he received, and he doesn't say who passed it to him, or where, or when. That is, it's a story he heard, and he is saying plainly that he can't vouch for it himself. That's what the man said, and you're treating it as if it were an objective account at first hand. Why? The Gospel writers don't. They wrote after Paul's letters were written, and they don't mention these "five hundred" people at all. If it had happened, don't you think they'd have mentioned it, too?

Sorry, Dave, Paul was a contemporary of most if not all of the eyewitnesses. He was Saul of Tarsus, the persecutor of the early Church. He received the gospel [I Cor 15:1], not tradition. Acts 9 records his conversion experience which included time with the disciples at Damascus [v 19] and he started immediately preaching Christ [v 20]. Two of the gospel writers, Matthew and John, were part of the original 12 disciples so they had first hand experience, but as John wrote at the end of his gospel, Jesus did so many things that the world can't contain all the books if every deed was recorded.

That's idiotic, Henry. Read it again. Whether Paul was a contemporary is totally immaterial. He says plainly that he was not a witness and that he received this not by eyewitness testimony, and you are treating it as if he said it was, in flat defiance of the text. Some Bible-believer you are. The Gospels do not treat it that way. The status of the Gospels, or who wrote them, is immaterial. The point is that they write of Jesus's appearances after the Resurrection in terms that barely overlap, and emphasise totally different stories, and not Paul's, whereever he got it from. Why do they emphasise these different stories? Why don't they mention Paul's "five hundred people at one time" story? The only answer you have is, "Well, that's just the way it is, that's all." There's a better answer, Henry, and you'd see it if you didn't have your eyes shut and your fingers in your ears while you're going lalala. You reckon God gave you your brain, Henry. According to the Parable of the Talents, He expects you to use it. Use it, already.

stevaroni said: And frankly, since you are God, if mere mortals like the Romans go and crucify you, it's only because you damn well let them. From your divine point of view it's probably about as significant as Arnold Schwarzenegger allowing his three-year-old son to "beat" him in arm wrestling.

Of course, we can always take this to the Bathroom Wall.

wayneefrancis said: This is a great point. Morals change over time.

weldonelwood#ca23d said:

harold said:

The Ninth District court ruled for the teacher, 3-0.

This was not a victory for constitutional rights or teaching of science, though. It was a terrible decision. Their claim is that teachers have the right to insult religious opinions in public schools. The rather absurd justification is the tenuous claim that insulting one religion doesn't amount to implicitly endorsing others. (My paraphrase.) In this case, a socially strong religious belief was insulted, but the precedent has been set. The Freshwater's of tomorrow can join in the bullying of minority students from their position of authority at the head of the class.

Actually, as a constitutional law attorney I can tell you that's not what the 9th Circuit decided. All they decided was that there was that the teacher had qualified immunity from suit because he did not violate a right which had been clearly established in a prior case. The Court didn't even get to the issue of whether the teacher did commit a constitutional violation or not.

(1 Corinthians 15:3) First and foremost, I handed on to you the tradition I had received: that Christ died for our sins, in accordance with the scriptures...

Dave Luckett said: For the last bleeping time, whether Paul was a contemporary is irrelevant, and the other things he might have seen are also irrelevant. He wasn't an eyewitness to the appearances of Jesus after the Resurrection that are mentioned in the Gospels. He wasn't an eyewitness to the appearance of Jesus to five hundred people.

³For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, ⁴ that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, ⁵ and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. ⁶ After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. ⁷ Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, ⁸ and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

(Paul) wasn’t an eyewitness to the appearances of Jesus after the Resurrection that are mentioned in the Gospels

(1 Cor 15:8) And last of all he (Jesus) appeared to me (Paul) also, as to one abnormally born.

FL, you nitwit, where in the Gospels does it say that Jesus appeared to Paul?

Dave Luckett said: FL, you nitwit, where in the Gospels does it say that Jesus appeared to Paul?

FL said: Here's the problem. THIS....

(Paul) wasn’t an eyewitness to the appearances of Jesus after the Resurrection that are mentioned in the Gospels

....is clearly refuted by THIS:

(1 Cor 15:8) And last of all he (Jesus) appeared to me (Paul) also, as to one abnormally born.

There's no way, no wiggle, out of that one. FL

It took a while for NPR to notice. Note Dennis' article from a year ago in PSCF. Here Dennis provides in quite accessible terms the evidence he discussed with NPR.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2010/PSCF9-10Venema.pdf

OK, Henry & FL--a little simulation:

You're on trial for murder. What the hell, make it a mass killing, including children, in a death-penalty state (say, Texas). All the evidence against you is the stuff in the New Testament about the post-crucifixion appearance of Jesus--except it's about how you committed the mass murder. Can you imagine that? The "evidence" is not 2,000 years old, it's only a few years old, but there are no living eyewitnesses, and no one who met an eyewitness--only the written testimony as it appears in the NT (except it's about how YOU did the murders). But hmm... the stories have almost no matching elements, and several obviously contradictory ones. And most of them are hearsay, having gone through unknown numbers of tellers before the (non)witnesses wrote them down.

Now think about how you would put together a defense against a murder charge like that.

If you were the DA, would you even take the case to the Grand Jury?

Dave Luckett said: Tradition in the historian's sense of the word, means "interpretations passed on by word of mouth over generations". It was in that sense that I was using the word, as it appears in the translation given by the Revised Standard Bible, which is better and more recent than whatever mash-up of the KJV you're using there. This reads:

(1 Corinthians 15:3) First and foremost, I handed on to you the tradition I had received: that Christ died for our sins, in accordance with the scriptures...

For the last bleeping time, whether Paul was a contemporary is irrelevant, and the other things he might have seen are also irrelevant. He wasn't an eyewitness to the appearances of Jesus after the Resurrection that are mentioned in the Gospels. He wasn't an eyewitness to the appearance of Jesus to five hundred people. He mentions it as something he has heard, but nobody else does - which is really odd. Why not? The details of the appearances given in the Gospels are quite specific, but the separate accounts have almost nothing in common with each other except a brief, vague and unspecific mention of him appearing in the room where the disciples were gathered. Where specific details are given, they are divergent, telling completely different stories, and the accounts fail to corroborate each other. It's not enough simply to assert that the stories told of these appearances in the Gospels could all be true. The question is, why are they all different? As I have said now several times, any historian knows what causes accounts to diverge like this. These are plainly variant narratives passed on by word of mouth, becoming embellished and mythologised in the process. They represent different traditions and different agendae of different writers. There may be a core of common experience within them. More than this is impossible to say. This is to treat the Gospels as historical documents, written by human beings - because that's what they are. They are not texts written at God's dictation. Anybody who starts with that flagrantly lunatic idea has simply resigned reason and fled reality.

First, an error of mine. The translation I used was The Revised English Bible, not the Revised Standard Bible. The quotation I gave from it was accurate.

Now for Biggy's. Paul was not "there with the apostles" during the period between the Resurrection and the Ascension, of course. He only turned up after that. He saw none of the events mentioned in the Gospels, and states as much himself. In fact, he was barely ever with the apostles at all, and then it was to quarrel with them.

His interactions with Peter and James, Jesus's brother, were conflicts, not fellowship. He claims to have done more than they in the passage Biggy quoted, 1 Corinthians 15:10, a piece of self-congratulation that is gratuitously offensive, at least.

But more. Paul says, at Galatians 1 ff, that he saw none of the other apostles at all for the first three years of his ministry, and at that point only Cephas (Peter) and James. In chapter 2, he says that he saw them again, plus John, fourteen years later. Fourteen years! These were his only contacts with the original apostles, he says. He specifically denies having the gospel from any of them and also says that only his gospel, Paul's gospel, is right. He tells his followers that anyone who tells them different must be banned. Even "angels from heaven". Whoa! Even the original apostles?

It seems so, because it gets worse. On the latter occasion above, he presumed to instruct both Peter and James and to rail against them. In Galatians 2, in a barely-veiled reference, he says that he would not yield to them, and then states that he upbraided Peter himself. What a noive! He implies that he came off best in this exchange. Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?

So the statement that Paul "was there with the apostles" is a nonsense. He hardly ever saw or associated with them, pushed himself and his mission ahead of theirs, and on the very rare occasions that he did meet them, he came into direct and acrimonious conflict with them.

This idea that the beginnings of the Church were all brotherly accord is just so much moonshine. There was a murky political struggle going on, and it got pretty nasty in places. It all had to be patched up later, after the Romans had destroyed Jerusalem - and that's what the main job of the Evangelists was.

Dave Luckett said: First, an error of mine. The translation I used was The Revised English Bible, not the Revised Standard Bible. The quotation I gave from it was accurate. Now for Biggy's. Paul was not "there with the apostles" during the period between the Resurrection and the Ascension, of course. He only turned up after that. He saw none of the events mentioned in the Gospels, and states as much himself. In fact, he was barely ever with the apostles at all, and then it was to quarrel with them. His interactions with Peter and James, Jesus's brother, were conflicts, not fellowship. He claims to have done more than they in the passage Biggy quoted, 1 Corinthians 15:10, a piece of self-congratulation that is gratuitously offensive, at least. But more. Paul says, at Galatians 1 ff, that he saw none of the other apostles at all for the first three years of his ministry, and at that point only Cephas (Peter) and James. In chapter 2, he says that he saw them again, plus John, fourteen years later. Fourteen years! These were his only contacts with the original apostles, he says. He specifically denies having the gospel from any of them and also says that only his gospel, Paul's gospel, is right. He tells his followers that anyone who tells them different must be banned. Even "angels from heaven". Whoa! Even the original apostles? It seems so, because it gets worse. On the latter occasion above, he presumed to instruct both Peter and James and to rail against them. In Galatians 2, in a barely-veiled reference, he says that he would not yield to them, and then states that he upbraided Peter himself. What a noive! He implies that he came off best in this exchange. Well, he would say that, wouldn't he? So the statement that Paul "was there with the apostles" is a nonsense. He hardly ever saw or associated with them, pushed himself and his mission ahead of theirs, and on the very rare occasions that he did meet them, he came into direct and acrimonious conflict with them. This idea that the beginnings of the Church were all brotherly accord is just so much moonshine. There was a murky political struggle going on, and it got pretty nasty in places. It all had to be patched up later, after the Romans had destroyed Jerusalem - and that's what the main job of the Evangelists was.

FL, you nitwit, where in the Gospels does it say that Jesus appeared to Paul?

This is what you get for expecting... well, not rational argument from FL, that's out, but at least to follow what's being argued.

To recap, I am arguing that the several different accounts in the Gospels and in 1 Corinthians of Jesus's appearances after Resurrection show the earmarks of fabulation and embellishment in as many different directions. I was stating what is an undoubted fact, that in 1 Corinthians 15:6 Paul says that there was an appearance by Jesus before "more than five hundred people", although he, Paul, was not among them, but some people still living at the time of writing were. This story is not corroborated in any other place, not even in the Gospels, which were written later.

The major content regarding these events in each of the Gospels is also not mutually corroborative. Where the appearance is described in detailed, substantial and specific terms, it is unique to each account, while the overlap between the accounts is minimal, brief and vague.

This is diagnostic of fabulation, as stories are being passed on by oral tradition. Yes, I know that if we're going to have miracles, there's no reason why we can't have a whole swag of them all at once. But why do each of the sources describe different miracles? Have you got some other explanation that doesn't sound something like, "Well, they just do, that's all"?

Is that clear enough for you, now?

FL said:

FL, you nitwit, where in the Gospels does it say that Jesus appeared to Paul?

Doesn't say it in the Gospels. Says it in 1 Cor 15:8. And you do not have any rational nor textual reason for ignoring that clear testimony. Furthermore, the author of the Gospel of Luke (who was Luke, of course), ALSO pointed out in his sequel (the Book of Acts) that Jesus appeared to Paul (Acts 9). So there's a corroboration of 1 Cor 15 in the book of Acts. Jesus appeared to Paul. Paul was an actual witness of Him. You and SWT are welcome to disbelieve the biblical claim (what else is new?), but that's what the Bible says. FL

FL said: You and SWT are welcome to disbelieve the biblical claim (what else is new?), but that's what the Bible says. FL

Mike Elzinga said: Perhaps FL needs some reminding that pretending to have expertise he doesn’t have always comes back to bite him.

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: Perhaps FL needs some reminding that pretending to have expertise he doesn’t have always comes back to bite him.

Bite? He has no problem with playing the fool because he has never been anything else and is unlikely to ever be anything else. The objective is to be at center stage; he's never going to get applause and he knows it, so he thrives on the jeers and the boos.

Mike Elzinga said: Personality cults tend to promote the gift of gab that is backed with plenty of chutzpa and overwhelming force of personality. This appears to be the game that FL is trying to play (and not doing very well at it).

Dave Luckett said: First, an error of mine. The translation I used was The Revised English Bible, not the Revised Standard Bible. The quotation I gave from it was accurate. Now for Biggy's. Paul was not "there with the apostles" during the period between the Resurrection and the Ascension, of course. He only turned up after that. He saw none of the events mentioned in the Gospels, and states as much himself. In fact, he was barely ever with the apostles at all, and then it was to quarrel with them. His interactions with Peter and James, Jesus's brother, were conflicts, not fellowship. He claims to have done more than they in the passage Biggy quoted, 1 Corinthians 15:10, a piece of self-congratulation that is gratuitously offensive, at least. But more. Paul says, at Galatians 1 ff, that he saw none of the other apostles at all for the first three years of his ministry, and at that point only Cephas (Peter) and James. In chapter 2, he says that he saw them again, plus John, fourteen years later. Fourteen years! These were his only contacts with the original apostles, he says. He specifically denies having the gospel from any of them and also says that only his gospel, Paul's gospel, is right. He tells his followers that anyone who tells them different must be banned. Even "angels from heaven". Whoa! Even the original apostles? It seems so, because it gets worse. On the latter occasion above, he presumed to instruct both Peter and James and to rail against them. In Galatians 2, in a barely-veiled reference, he says that he would not yield to them, and then states that he upbraided Peter himself. What a noive! He implies that he came off best in this exchange. Well, he would say that, wouldn't he? So the statement that Paul "was there with the apostles" is a nonsense. He hardly ever saw or associated with them, pushed himself and his mission ahead of theirs, and on the very rare occasions that he did meet them, he came into direct and acrimonious conflict with them. This idea that the beginnings of the Church were all brotherly accord is just so much moonshine. There was a murky political struggle going on, and it got pretty nasty in places. It all had to be patched up later, after the Romans had destroyed Jerusalem - and that's what the main job of the Evangelists was.

Henry the lying theocrat said:

Dave Luckett said: First, an error of mine. The translation I used was The Revised English Bible, not the Revised Standard Bible. The quotation I gave from it was accurate. Now for Biggy's. Paul was not "there with the apostles" during the period between the Resurrection and the Ascension, of course. He only turned up after that. He saw none of the events mentioned in the Gospels, and states as much himself. In fact, he was barely ever with the apostles at all, and then it was to quarrel with them. His interactions with Peter and James, Jesus's brother, were conflicts, not fellowship. He claims to have done more than they in the passage Biggy quoted, 1 Corinthians 15:10, a piece of self-congratulation that is gratuitously offensive, at least. But more. Paul says, at Galatians 1 ff, that he saw none of the other apostles at all for the first three years of his ministry, and at that point only Cephas (Peter) and James. In chapter 2, he says that he saw them again, plus John, fourteen years later. Fourteen years! These were his only contacts with the original apostles, he says. He specifically denies having the gospel from any of them and also says that only his gospel, Paul's gospel, is right. He tells his followers that anyone who tells them different must be banned. Even "angels from heaven". Whoa! Even the original apostles? It seems so, because it gets worse. On the latter occasion above, he presumed to instruct both Peter and James and to rail against them. In Galatians 2, in a barely-veiled reference, he says that he would not yield to them, and then states that he upbraided Peter himself. What a noive! He implies that he came off best in this exchange. Well, he would say that, wouldn't he? So the statement that Paul "was there with the apostles" is a nonsense. He hardly ever saw or associated with them, pushed himself and his mission ahead of theirs, and on the very rare occasions that he did meet them, he came into direct and acrimonious conflict with them. This idea that the beginnings of the Church were all brotherly accord is just so much moonshine. There was a murky political struggle going on, and it got pretty nasty in places. It all had to be patched up later, after the Romans had destroyed Jerusalem - and that's what the main job of the Evangelists was.

Base on Galatians 1:18, 19 ,2:9 I'll revise my statement to Paul was there with the Apostles Peter, James, and John. Even then, tradition isn't a good description because there weren't generations of oral transmission. Paul's dispute with Peter is stated in Galatians 2:14-16. King James Version 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews ? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified . Even after the resurrection, ascension, and pentecost, Peter still made mistakes. I think Paul was right in correcting him because Peter as a leader in the church was misleading others.

Good News Translation
3 I passed on to you what I received, which is of the greatest importance: that Christ died for our sins, as written in the Scriptures;

The Message
3 The first thing I did was place before you what was placed so emphatically before me: that the Messiah died for our sins, exactly as Scripture tells it

The Darby Translation
3 For I delivered to you, in the first place, what also I had received, that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures;

Bible in Basic English
3 For I gave to you first of all what was handed down to me, how Christ underwent death for our sins, as it says in the Writings

Here are 4 more translations for a total of 10 which do not have the word tradition as in the Revised English Bible. Unfortunately, I can't locate a website that has this version online so I don't know if this version uses italics for words that aren't in the Greek text, which is what the KJV does. Is it possible the translators added tradition because of their own biases?

Henry said: Good News Translation 3 I passed on to you what I received, which is of the greatest importance: that Christ died for our sins, as written in the Scriptures; The Message 3 The first thing I did was place before you what was placed so emphatically before me: that the Messiah died for our sins, exactly as Scripture tells it The Darby Translation 3 For I delivered to you, in the first place, what also I had received, that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures; Bible in Basic English 3 For I gave to you first of all what was handed down to me, how Christ underwent death for our sins, as it says in the Writings Here are 4 more translations for a total of 10 which do not have the word tradition as in the Revised English Bible. Unfortunately, I can't locate a website that has this version online so I don't know if this version uses italics for words that aren't in the Greek text, which is what the KJV does. Is it possible the translators added tradition because of their own biases?

DS said:

John S. said: Eric says we're apes. Sorry Eric, I disagree. Maybe we act like apes at times but I believe we're made in the image of God with an eternal soul. You can disagree. ... You set your facts in order and the truth will stand without any help. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. Good day.

Thanks for being civil John. Apparently you want to have areal discussion about science. Great. Unfortunately, you have already disproven your own hypothesis. You see John, the evidence is overwhelming that humans are the descendants of apes. There is evidence from the fossil record. There is evidence from developmental biology. There is evidence from comparative anatomy. There is evidence from biochemistry. There is evidence from genetics, including mitochondrial DNA, karyotyping of chromosomes, sequencing of nuclear DNA and (my favorite) SINE insertions. And here is the thing John, all of these independent data sets give exactly the same answer. Humans are deeply nested within the primate clade, with chimpanzees being the closest living relative. Humans are the descendants of apes, no doubt about it. So John, you are either ignorant of all of this evidence, or you are unconvinced by evidence that has convinced every expert. If the former, I can provide you with references from the scientific literature. If the latter, perhaps you have some preconceptions that are preventing you from being completely objective when it comes to this issue. A wise man once said that ignorance is a temporary condition but stupid is forever. Once again, I was right. So what's it going to be John? Can you handle the truth? Or are you going to confirm the hypothesis you denied?

Henry said: The scientists at ICR would disagree with your evidence.

SWT said: Henry, you've lost me. In what significant way does the meaning of the translation Dave Luckett is using differ from the meanings of the multiple alternatives that you've posted?

SWT said:

Henry said: Good News Translation 3 I passed on to you what I received, which is of the greatest importance: that Christ died for our sins, as written in the Scriptures; The Message 3 The first thing I did was place before you what was placed so emphatically before me: that the Messiah died for our sins, exactly as Scripture tells it The Darby Translation 3 For I delivered to you, in the first place, what also I had received, that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures; Bible in Basic English 3 For I gave to you first of all what was handed down to me, how Christ underwent death for our sins, as it says in the Writings Here are 4 more translations for a total of 10 which do not have the word tradition as in the Revised English Bible. Unfortunately, I can't locate a website that has this version online so I don't know if this version uses italics for words that aren't in the Greek text, which is what the KJV does. Is it possible the translators added tradition because of their own biases?

Henry, you've lost me. In what significant way does the meaning of the translation Dave Luckett is using differ from the meanings of the multiple alternatives that you've posted?

All this Bible-thumping reminds me of the scene where Graham Chapman explains how Arthur became king.

The Lady Of The Lake must be real, she's right there in Malory!

Yawn.

Henry doesn't like the word "tradition". He's latching on to a single word that he thinks he understands, and disputing its meaning in the hope that he can keep alive the nonsense he believes, that the Bible is the direct and inerrant word of God.

He thinks that "tradition" necessarily implies generations of transmission. It doesn't. It can mean oral transmission from person to person of a story or practice or idea. That story or idea morphs or the practice takes on different meanings or values as it goes through an unknown number of minds, and this can happen in a surprisingly short time. That's a tradition.

Paul at 1 Corinthians 15:6 says Jesus appeared to "over five hundred of our brothers at once". Elsewhere he directly denies that he got anything from the original disciples, and states that he hardly ever even saw them, so it wasn't them who told him this. He only encountered Jesus that once, on the road to Damascus. Therefore, he is speaking of what he has heard from unspecified other persons.

This is a tradition, a story handed down from people who knew people who'd told them of something they'd heard from someone else. "Rumour" is probably more unkind, and anyway Paul didn't say that.

The point is not what we call this process. It's that it's not eyewitness testimony, and that it bears the marks of fabulation. Let's say, if you like, that Paul accurately reported what he'd been told.

(There's no particular reason to believe that, mind. Paul is himself guilty of fabulation, plainly. In his famously coy description of his experience on the road to Damascus in 2 Corinthians 12:2 ff, he says he doesn't know if he was in or out of the body. The description at Acts 9:3 is plain: Paul's body was never anywhere else but on the road: the voice from Heaven tells him to get up from it. So Paul is there romanticising his own experience, not surprisingly. What odds that he is projecting this figure of five hundred from some tale he's heard that started out something like "A whole lot of people saw Jesus..."? But all that to one side.)

But suppose he did accurately report what he'd been told. So what? It's a tradition, a rumour, a story. It isn't eyewitness testimony, and it probably doesn't even report eyewitness testimony. It isn't original, and it comes from unknown sources, so it isn't the direct and inerrant word of God, which is the screaming bleeping point. Quibbling over the precise value of a single word is completely irrelevant to that point. But if that's all you got, that's what you do.

Dave Luckett said: Henry doesn't like the word "tradition". He's latching on to a single word that he thinks he understands, and disputing its meaning in the hope that he can keep alive the nonsense he believes, that the Bible is the direct and inerrant word of God. He thinks that "tradition" necessarily implies generations of transmission. It doesn't. It can mean oral transmission from person to person of a story or practice or idea. That story or idea morphs or the practice takes on different meanings or values as it goes through an unknown number of minds, and this can happen in a surprisingly short time. That's a tradition. ... But suppose he did accurately report what he'd been told. So what? It's a tradition, a rumour, a story. It isn't eyewitness testimony, and it probably doesn't even report eyewitness testimony. It isn't original, and it comes from unknown sources, so it isn't the direct and inerrant word of God, which is the screaming bleeping point. Quibbling over the precise value of a single word is completely irrelevant to that point. But if that's all you got, that's what you do.

Yes, with a caveat. I am referring specifically to Paul's mention of Jesus's appearance after Resurrection to "five hundred of the brothers at once" - an event that nobody else mentioned. I infer from the plain form of his words that he had heard of this from others, but I think that they had in turn had heard it from others still, through an unknown number of iterations. This is what makes it a tradition. It's the transmission and the result, not the lapse in time. Paul said that some who were there were living still - but, tellingly, he didn't say that he had spoken to them directly. We don't know his sources, therefore. We can only say certainly that he is quoting a tradition.

Have a look at the "Angels of Mons" story for another example of what I mean. That's a tradition still being handed on fifty and sixty years later, and it grew up in less than five, having been sparked (most likely) by muddled memories of a short story published in 1912 plus, probably, propaganda. But hundreds of soldiers later claimed to be witnesses to it, and at least some of them certainly believed it. Most likely they were mistaking other people's stories for their own memories, something that is surprisingly easy to do. But it formed the basis of a tradition. I think Paul's sources were operating in the same way.

Thanks, Dave.

Ironically, I think henry is somehow troubled by the direct, literal meaning of Paul's comment ("I'm telling you what I was taught plus the big thing that happened to me personally"). Fortunately, I keep my irony meter behind osmium shielding when reading Panda's Thumb.

Dave Luckett said: Henry doesn't like the word "tradition". He's latching on to a single word that he thinks he understands, and disputing its meaning in the hope that he can keep alive the nonsense he believes, that the Bible is the direct and inerrant word of God. He thinks that "tradition" necessarily implies generations of transmission. It doesn't. It can mean oral transmission from person to person of a story or practice or idea. That story or idea morphs or the practice takes on different meanings or values as it goes through an unknown number of minds, and this can happen in a surprisingly short time. That's a tradition. Paul at 1 Corinthians 15:6 says Jesus appeared to "over five hundred of our brothers at once". Elsewhere he directly denies that he got anything from the original disciples, and states that he hardly ever even saw them, so it wasn't them who told him this. He only encountered Jesus that once, on the road to Damascus. Therefore, he is speaking of what he has heard from unspecified other persons. This is a tradition, a story handed down from people who knew people who'd told them of something they'd heard from someone else. "Rumour" is probably more unkind, and anyway Paul didn't say that. The point is not what we call this process. It's that it's not eyewitness testimony, and that it bears the marks of fabulation. Let's say, if you like, that Paul accurately reported what he'd been told. (There's no particular reason to believe that, mind. Paul is himself guilty of fabulation, plainly. In his famously coy description of his experience on the road to Damascus in 2 Corinthians 12:2 ff, he says he doesn't know if he was in or out of the body. The description at Acts 9:3 is plain: Paul's body was never anywhere else but on the road: the voice from Heaven tells him to get up from it. So Paul is there romanticising his own experience, not surprisingly. What odds that he is projecting this figure of five hundred from some tale he's heard that started out something like "A whole lot of people saw Jesus..."? But all that to one side.) But suppose he did accurately report what he'd been told. So what? It's a tradition, a rumour, a story. It isn't eyewitness testimony, and it probably doesn't even report eyewitness testimony. It isn't original, and it comes from unknown sources, so it isn't the direct and inerrant word of God, which is the screaming bleeping point. Quibbling over the precise value of a single word is completely irrelevant to that point. But if that's all you got, that's what you do.

Dave Luckett said: Tradition in the historian's sense of the word, means "interpretations passed on by word of mouth over generations". It was in that sense that I was using the word, as it appears in the translation given by the Revised Standard Bible, which is better and more recent than whatever mash-up of the KJV you're using there. This reads:

(1 Corinthians 15:3) First and foremost, I handed on to you the tradition I had received: that Christ died for our sins, in accordance with the scriptures...

For the last bleeping time, whether Paul was a contemporary is irrelevant, and the other things he might have seen are also irrelevant. He wasn't an eyewitness to the appearances of Jesus after the Resurrection that are mentioned in the Gospels. He wasn't an eyewitness to the appearance of Jesus to five hundred people. He mentions it as something he has heard, but nobody else does - which is really odd. Why not? The details of the appearances given in the Gospels are quite specific, but the separate accounts have almost nothing in common with each other except a brief, vague and unspecific mention of him appearing in the room where the disciples were gathered. Where specific details are given, they are divergent, telling completely different stories, and the accounts fail to corroborate each other. It's not enough simply to assert that the stories told of these appearances in the Gospels could all be true. The question is, why are they all different? As I have said now several times, any historian knows what causes accounts to diverge like this. These are plainly variant narratives passed on by word of mouth, becoming embellished and mythologised in the process. They represent different traditions and different agendae of different writers. There may be a core of common experience within them. More than this is impossible to say. This is to treat the Gospels as historical documents, written by human beings - because that's what they are. They are not texts written at God's dictation. Anybody who starts with that flagrantly lunatic idea has simply resigned reason and fled reality.

http://www.icr.org/

ICR has an article on Venema's comments.

Henry said: This doesn't square with your earlier use of tradition. "over generations" was your definition, not person to person as you now defined it.

Mike Elzinga said:

Henry said: This doesn't square with your earlier use of tradition. "over generations" was your definition, not person to person as you now defined it.

Dave doesn’t believe that everyone who has ever existed lived at exactly the same instant in time.

Henry, you're right about that, and I should clarify. The words "over generations" were used inadvisedly. They are, in fact, incorrect. I withdraw and apologise for being loose and sloppy.

A tradition is something passed on by word of mouth until it is recorded in writing, through unknown numbers of people. This may be over considerable time, but the transmission might happen quite quickly. The essential marker of "tradition" is that the person recording it is an unknown number of separations from eyewitnesses, who are themselves unknown. This is the case with Paul's story of the five hundred who saw Jesus at one time. He was not an eyewitness, and he was not reporting eyewitnesses. He was reporting a tradition.

OK, now?