My family went to a few different churches during my childhood, but they never decided to settle on just one. So these days, I consider myself to be non-denominational.
Danica McKellar Becomes A Bible-Believing Christian After Leaving California
- Thread starter Shaka Zulu
- Start date
- Status
I know Kent Hovind is somewhat controversial (mostly because he was accused of not paying taxes, and spent time in prison for it), but that doesn't automatically invalidate any of his claims. The biggest thing he and I disagree on, is his insistence that the King James Bible is the only reliable translation - I don't share that view at all. But otherwise, I've seen many of his videos, and I think a lot of the scientific facts he cites make logical sense.
For example, Charles Darwin fooled a lot of people when he wrote his book, "On The Origin of Species"...but that's not even its full title. When first published in 1859, it was named "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". The full title alone reveals a much clearer picture, of what Darwin intended to teach with his views. Two phrases in particular stand out: "natural selection" and "favoured races". The first is ridiculous, because nature itself can't select anything - that's a choice which requires a mind. As for the latter, Darwin barely even mentioned mankind in the book, which makes the fact he included such a phrase in its title rather curious. He was clear that he believed in what Christians would call "macro-evolution", though he himself used the broader term because the more specific version wasn't coined until 1927.
As for your claims that "Creationists always seem to require proof of a modern species changing to a species from a completely different family/ order", and "Organisms don’t jump different branches. Their respective branch just shared a common origin back in the past"...I agree with the first completely, but only the first part of the second. The reason why we as believers require conclusive visual evidence, is because at present, it simply isn't there, and as such the claim that "humans come from or are relate to primates" remains unprovable. You say that different animals have a "respective branch (that) just shared a common origin back in the past"...but where is the evidence for that as well?
I don't deny the existence of limited genetic variation. For example, I think its perfectly acceptable that dogs, wolves, and coyotes probably had a shared ancestor...but it was some kind of a dog-like creature, not a bird or a horse. The same is true for humans - we obviously come in many different shapes and sizes, but we're still human...a unique kind separate from others.
But not for any of your religious claims, I take it?
Evidence is there, but from a historical methodology.
Also, some concerns around racist implications, though not unique to Darwin.
As with many things, context is important: https://sites.williams.edu/engl-209-fall16/uncategorized/the-dark-side-of-darwinism/
So, nothing tangible?
Other than the odds defying coincidences that allow life on Earth, no you won't find God in a test tube.
But, if we can accept Julius Caesar's Punic Wars as history from that source, then the increasing level of textual evidence for the Bible bears examining.
There are various things in the world, that can be verified by science in a laboratory. We accept those things as existing, but that doesn't automatically mean that others do not. Even though natural and supernatural claims can sometimes be approached in the same way, that's not the case for every circumstance. For example, in 1913 Raymond Weill found 8 elaborate tombs at the south of the City of David, which archaeologists have subsequently interpreted as strong candidates for the burial locations of the former kings of the city. While the exact site of King David's tomb is still debated, this discovery still lends credence to the fact he once existed, which many non-believers have rejected, and some still do. Similarly, the ossuary (or "bone box") for the Jewish high priest Caiaphas was discovered in 1990, by chance during earthwork on a hill south of the old city of Jerusalem. According to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, Caiaphas was a member of the Sanhedrin, and served a distinctive role in their decisions to have Jesus arrested and later crucified. 1st-Century Roman-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, widely considered as the most reliable extra-Biblical literary source for Caiaphas, wrote of him being related to other priests of the time.
Precisely. Another example in this vein is Homer's "Iliad", which was written in 900 B.C. Most scholars accept it as reliable, but the earliest copy is from 400 B.C., and only 643 of them have survived. Another example is the collective writings of Plato, which were done between 427 and 347 B.C. The earliest copy of that is from 900 A.D., and many accept these too, but there's only 7 surviving copies. By comparison, the surviving New Testament fragments we still have were written in 50-100 A.D., and the earliest surviving copies are from 130 A.D., but we have a whopping total of 5,600 fragments! So with that in mind, it makes no sense whatsoever from an historical perspective, to accept Homer and Plato but reject the New Testament.
Indeed, yes. Even noted skeptic and scholar Bart Erhman cites that number and more are being discovered through archeological work.
The Hitties were considered a myth, a made up people, until a discovery in the early 20th century that verified it, and we have attestations of its langugae as a distinct branch of Proto Indo-European languages.
Research is bearing out events all the time, and it's worth exploring, in my humble opinion.
Mileage will vary. Others might find it boring, like I find math.
Why does this not apply to your stance on evolution?
And there it is.
Of course it applies.
As I've already said, macro-evolution makes no sense. It can't be found in the fossil record, you can't study it in a test tube - there's just no way of visually verifying it, which is the expectation for any nature-bound subject. Ultimately, that's why its still considered a "theory", despite many who believe in it citing it as fact. That's a mistake, in my opinion.
I don't care for a lot of math, either. In fact, I got terrible grades in it, especially during my brief time in high school. As for Bart Erhman, he's rather double-minded, having written books where he claims the Bible makes sense, and others where he says the exact opposite.
If you find Hovind‘d arguments scientific and convincing, then I drop out of this conversation.
Hovind is a hack and purposefully misrepresenting science. He is gaslighting his audience regularly, the amount of strawmen used is a fire hazard of epic proportions.
Thanks for the conversation.
"Natural selection" doesn't imply some entity going through and making a thoughtful choice about things. The concept is that mutations that are beneficial to the species will make organism more successful, which then increases its possibilities for reproduction, and which then passes the mutation on to subsequent generations. Then the subsequent generations are more successful, and then they pass the same mutation on as well. Whereas organisms without the mutation are less successful and procreate less. Then over time, the mutation becomes "standard", as the population without it dwindles and disappears. In this way nature "selects" for the mutation, without there being any kind of intelligence guiding the process.
(That is my understanding, anyway, but I am admittedly not a biologist. If any biologists would like to offer a correction, it is welcomed.)
The reason why we as non-believers require conclusive visual evidence, is because at present, it simply isn't there, and as such the claim that "humans were created by a divine being" remains unprovable.
(As does the divine being itself.)
It seems a bit of a double standard that you can take one on faith, but for the other, you require something concrete... while ignoring the evidence that is there.
Troy was thought to be a myth too, until it was discovered. That doesn't mean the Greek gods were real.
Last edited:
wait a second, we can observe stars in various stages of formation. And beyond observing the sun, we can perform fusion in the lab, transforming hydrogen into helium.
Of course. As I said, I think it merits examination. I don't find science a barrier to my belief. I study both, and find them equally interesting.
Mileage will vary.
http://physics.ucsc.edu/cosmo/primack_abrams/htmlformat/Einstein4.html
OK, here's a different apologist I like - Frank Turek, who founded the websites "Impact Apologetics" and "Cross Examined". In 2004, he co-wrote a book with Norman Geisler, appropriately titled "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist". Ever since, he's made numerous presentations around the world, and has also debated people such as Christopher Hitchens, Dennis Normak, David Silverman, Michael Shermer, and others. In this 4 & 1/2 minute video, Frank talks about why faith alone is not enough to keep Christians strong, how many younger believers walk away at a young age, and the very important (yet admittedly controversial) difference between "faith" and "truth". Now, he does use some fairly humorous examples, particularly toward the end, but I think you'll probably still understand his overall point.
If you're a much more patient person, you can watch his full, 2-hour debate with Mr. Hitchens, right here. The theme of the debate was, "What best explains reality - theism or atheism?"
If you're a much more patient person, you can watch his full, 2-hour debate with Mr. Hitchens, right here. The theme of the debate was, "What best explains reality - theism or atheism?"
He's an asshole. I looked him up last time you mentioned him and I remember him as the asshole who managed to come off as an even bigger smarmy asshole than Christopher Hitchens when they debated.
Plus, to say his views on marriage are archaic would be an understatement.
Mentioning him does not further your cause.
- Status
Similar threads
