Skip to main content
Update
Non-financial boards have been closed.

Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.

Fool.com | The Motley Fool Community
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 3
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/none-found

...As unpersuasive as Behe’s ideas are scientifically, they are even less convincing philosophically. Behe professes agnosticism on whether the designer was a dope, a demon, or a deity, although he seems peculiarly inclined toward the second possibility. His is a strangely impoverished worldview, one that leaves little space for awe, much less for future scientific advance; he never even raises the obvious question of who the designer is and how it works. Contrast this with Darwin’s starry-eyed summation in Origin of Species: “There is grandeur in this view of life . . . from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
This guy seems to repeat the claims of more qualified reviewers (ie actual scientists), and since Behe has answered these things in his blog already, there doesn't appear to be anything new here.

Behe sure doesn't have any friends in the mainstream science media, does he?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Behe sure doesn't have any friends in the mainstream science media, does he?

Will more friends mean his theory is more likely to be true?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Behe sure doesn't have any friends in the mainstream science media, does he?

Will more friends mean his theory is more likely to be true?


Behe, judging from his responses to critics, doesn't feel like they are really addressing the issues he raises. Which is not surprising at all to me because it is the same way they treated Darwin's Black Box.

I'd like to see Behe get fair treatment in the science journals. That's impossible when the only acceptable response to him is predetermined to be "Behe is a jerk".

And I won't hold my breath to see them give Behe a chance to respond.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'd like to see Behe get fair treatment in the science journals. That's impossible when the only acceptable response to him is predetermined to be "Behe is a jerk".

Is that what you got from the Discovery article?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Is that what you got from the Discovery article?


What I got is talking-point criticisms with nothing to back them up. It plays well to the base. Like in politics
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 21
Behe, judging from his responses to critics, doesn't feel like they are really addressing the issues he raises. Which is not surprising at all to me because it is the same way they treated Darwin's Black Box.

Behe has only ever raised one issue: the notion that tiny system X is too complicated to evolve, therefore, via handwaving, there must be a designer.

This issue was address ad nauseam eleven years ago, when he wrote DBB. I talked about many of them in my own post on it. Nothing I've seen in either the reviews or the responses to the reviews indicates that he's made a substantially new argument.

Behe's mocking claims that people do not address his issues remind me very much of his performance at the Dover trial. He said "Nobody has written about the evolution of the flagellum" at which point the lawyer asked if he has read this stack of books and papers about the evolution of the flagellum. Behe replied that he hadn't read them, and then dismissed the papers he hadn't read as unfruitful.

If critics call Behe, it is probably just because he is constantly repackaging the same material and then taunting people for not addressing issues that have already been rebutted. That is an extraordinarily jerky thing to do.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Behe's mocking claims that people do not address his issues remind me very much of his performance at the Dover trial. He said "Nobody has written about the evolution of the flagellum" at which point the lawyer asked if he has read this stack of books and papers about the evolution of the flagellum. Behe replied that he hadn't read them, and then dismissed the papers he hadn't read as unfruitful.


This is not accurate. Behe didn't say that "Nobody has written about the evolution of the flagellum". They were discussing the vertibrate immune system, and the testimony went like this:

Q. We'll get back to that. Now, these articles rebut your assertion that scientific literature has no answers on the origin of the vertebrate immune system?

A. No, they certainly do not. My answer, or my argument is that the literature has no detailed rigorous explanations for how complex biochemical systems could arise by a random mutation and natural selection and these articles do not address that.

Q. So these are not good enough?

A. They're wonderful articles. They're very interesting. They simply just don't address the question that I pose.


Behe explained (had you paid any attention) why he didn't need to read the whole stack to know they didn't address the question:

Q. You haven't read the books that I gave you?

A. No, I haven't. I have read those papers that I presented though yesterday on the immune system.

Q. And the fifty-eight articles, some yes, some no?

A. Well, the nice thing about science is that often times when you read the latest articles, or a sampling of the latest articles, they certainly include earlier results. So you get up to speed pretty quickly. You don't have to go back and read every article on a particular topic for the last fifty years or so.


If the articles and books were relevant, they would have been cited in the newer articles Behe did read.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm.html

But whatever, just cite the article or book that gives the detailed explanation Behe is talking about, win the argument, and we can move on to more interesting ones.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
the literature has no detailed rigorous explanations for how complex biochemical systems could arise by a random mutation and natural selection


Is this true of evolution literature, ID literature, or both?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 44
I'd like to see Behe get fair treatment in the science journals.

What, exactly, would you like to see? "Well, we disagree with the Flat-Earth Research Team, but there might be something to it, so we're going to mute our criticism"?

The reality is that anyone challenging established theory gets a hostile reaction. The concept of plate-tectonics wasn't greeted with open arms, heck it took 50 years from "proposal" to "adoption". Charles Lyell didn't come to public acclaim for discovering geologic time in 1830. Cripes, look what happened to Galileo or Copernicus.

The simple fact is that evolution is a widely understood, predictive, falsifiable scientific theory. Behe's saying "This is too complicated to understand" is not science, it's an admission of the limitations of his brain. His bringing up of a couple of pieces of minutae which are not yet explained is not persuasive; we don't understand gravity, yet no one goes around saying "the theory of gravity is wrong."

If Behe wants to convince people then he needs to convince people; not with negative arguments that lead nowhere, but by providing proof of what he is saying. To date he has supplied none and seems incapable of doing so. And every time he is criticized he trots out the same response, and luddites who can't get past the idea that their 2,000 year old book might contain a few errors of fact rush to his side with the self-same proof, which is to say, "none."

Perhaps that is why his own peers at his own university, with whom he presumably has plenty of time and discussion and argument have disowned him and want nothing to do with him, because he is an embarrassment to them and to the entire scientific community at large.
 
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'd like to see Behe get fair treatment in the science journals.
-----------
What, exactly, would you like to see?


I know it's too much to ask of the science establishment, but my dream would be

1. Behe's arguments are acurately portrayed in the review
2. Behe gets a chance to respond in the same journal.

The reality is that anyone challenging established theory gets a hostile reaction.

This is true. Why is it always that way do you think?

Behe's saying "This is too complicated to understand" is not science, it's an admission of the limitations of his brain. His bringing up of a couple of pieces of minutae which are not yet explained is not persuasive; we don't understand gravity, yet no one goes around saying "the theory of gravity is wrong."


Behe doesn't say that. This is the sad fact of the state of things, people read the stupid reviews and are content that Behe has nothing, and repeat inaccurate stuff like this.

What "minutae" has Behe brought up? Oh right, the molecular challenge to evolution. Those tiny, microscopic things that don't matter in the long run, "I mean just look at all this cool stuff evolution did, its all around you", right?

Unfortunately, if evolution can't get past the "minutae" of evolving protein-to-protein binding sites of the kind Behe studies, then it can't do all the pretty stuff you think it's done. It couldn't be more simple.

In Behe's latest book The Edge of Evolution he argues based on empirical observation what evolution can and can't do by itself. This is not "Oh my this is too complicated" type of argument, its more "I've observed these conditions, with these results". Sounds kinda like science.

Perhaps that is why his own peers at his own university, with whom he presumably has plenty of time and discussion and argument have disowned him and want nothing to do with him, because he is an embarrassment to them and to the entire scientific community at large.

Yeah, the science community really dropped the ball big time on that one, and let Behe slip through the cracks, or else we wouldnt be having this discussion.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
the literature has no detailed rigorous explanations for how complex biochemical systems could arise by a random mutation and natural selection

Is this true of evolution literature, ID literature, or both?


Excellent question. Where are the detailed rigorous explanations for how complex biochemical system could arise by a designer?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
the literature has no detailed rigorous explanations for how complex biochemical systems could arise by a random mutation and natural selection

Additionally:

Must we go through all this again? Behe's argument is nothing more than moving the goalposts. His book claims that it is actually impossible to produce an evolutionary pathway to the biochemical systems he highlights. These papers answer that question, whereupon Behe complains that they don't prove that they provide THE conclusive, historical path that was actually followed. This is a total red herring: Behe's claim of an unproved designer relies on the belief that no possible pathway exists. And that one is simply wrong.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Excellent question. Where are the detailed rigorous explanations for how complex biochemical system could arise by a designer?

Isn't it the burden of the theory that claims to have such explanation to produce them, to experimentally test them?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Isn't it the burden of the theory that claims to have such explanation to produce them, to experimentally test them?

Yes, and we are still waiting for ID to produce any evidence or perform any experiments.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Behe doesn't say that. This is the sad fact of the state of things, people read the stupid reviews and are content that Behe has nothing, and repeat inaccurate stuff like this.


The offer still stands - I read Behe (who I have problems with) and you read Carrier (who you have problems with.) If you want others to read from 'the opposition'...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
Isn't it the burden of the theory that claims to have such explanation to produce them, to experimentally test them?

The burden of a theory is to come up with a framework that explains how things happen, and demonstrate that the theory is both consistent with the known facts and that it does not add unnecessary conditions that are not in evidence.

The burden of a theory is not to make its practitioners omnipotent about every event that ever happened.

If you put a ball in a pachinko machine and drop it, then don't watch the results, later you can see that it landed in one of the slots at the bottom. What caused it to arrive in that slot? Gravity, as well as the physics of mass and collisions of solid objects. Can you prove that it followed one path and not another? No. Does that mean gravity is an invalid theory? No. Does the lack of a complete snapshot record of the ball's path mean the system requires an intelligent puller to work? No.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The burden of a theory is not to make its practitioners omnipotent about every event that ever happened.

I mean omniscient! Why do I always mix those two up?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
If you put a ball in a pachinko machine and drop it, then don't watch the results, later you can see that it landed in one of the slots at the bottom. What caused it to arrive in that slot? Gravity, as well as the physics of mass and collisions of solid objects. Can you prove that it followed one path and not another? No. Does that mean gravity is an invalid theory? No. Does the lack of a complete snapshot record of the ball's path mean the system requires an intelligent puller to work? No.

good analogy ...IMO


probability of the ball being in any particular slot --small.
probability of any particular path --unbearably tiny.

but once the ball is going ...the force of natural selection will force the ball to follow SOME path and end up in SOME slot.


the Theist still gets to ask, 'how did the ball get released?' 'how did the machine get built?'

..but it *seems* the IDist wants to say there's 'intelligence' guiding the ball as it falls, making sure it ends up in One Particular slot ... which ,of course, makes perfect sense theologically.


=b
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I forget the scientist, but he was talking about his ideas regarding quantum physics at a symposium decades ago, and they ripped him apart because he didn't have a clear picture of what he was saying. He tried to defend his ideas, and a colleague told him to sit down and shut up.

He came back next time with his act together.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If you put a ball in a pachinko machine and drop it, then don't watch the results, later you can see that it landed in one of the slots at the bottom. What caused it to arrive in that slot? Gravity, as well as the physics of mass and collisions of solid objects. Can you prove that it followed one path and not another? No. Does that mean gravity is an invalid theory? No. Does the lack of a complete snapshot record of the ball's path mean the system requires an intelligent puller to work? No.

You can prove what path it took any time you want. Observe it happen. Everytime you drop it, it will take a path, often the same path it took before.

You also need intelligence to set up the system in which natural forces are allowed to operate to produce random results.

Picking up what I can from reviews and rebuttals, Behe seems to be saying now that you can drop the ball as many times as you want, it ain't gonna land in any hole that's not at the observable botton of the machine (the edge of evolution). It would take intervention from outside the system to accomplish that.

In essence he's saying, we've dropped the ball a million times. It just lands in one of the holes at the bottom. I can therefore infer that to get to something else besides these holes, I need something not accounted for yet in the theory of pachinko.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Picking up what I can from reviews and rebuttals, Behe seems to be saying now that you can drop the ball as many times as you want, it ain't gonna land in any hole that's not at the observable botton of the machine (the edge of evolution). It would take intervention from outside the system to accomplish that.

I think a more accurate analogy is that Behe claims that some holes at the bottom are only reachable if two balls collided and bounced off each other in just the right way.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I think a more accurate analogy is that Behe claims that some holes at the bottom are only reachable if two balls collided and bounced off each other in just the right way.


Lets keep it clean here . . . besides, I don't think he's talking about sexual selection
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
You can prove what path it took any time you want. Observe it happen. Everytime you drop it, it will take a path, often the same path it took before.

So you're saying that the only way Behe and other creationists will ever find evolution acceptable, is if scientists manage to completely reproduce a flagellum in a lab.

And when they do, creationists will claim it wasn't a valid experiment because it required intelligent scientists.

And you wonder why scientists don't take creationism seriously.

In essence he's saying, we've dropped the ball a million times. It just lands in one of the holes at the bottom. I can therefore infer that to get to something else besides these holes, I need something not accounted for yet in the theory of pachinko.

What you just said makes no sense at all if you're dealing with a pachinko machine that has a trillion holes.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Picking up what I can from reviews and rebuttals, Behe seems to be saying now that you can drop the ball as many times as you want, it ain't gonna land in any hole that's not at the observable botton of the machine (the edge of evolution). It would take intervention from outside the system to accomplish that.

In essence he's saying, we've dropped the ball a million times. It just lands in one of the holes at the bottom. I can therefore infer that to get to something else besides these holes, I need something not accounted for yet in the theory of pachinko.


Er, what?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
bdhinton: In essence he's saying, we've dropped the ball a million times. It just lands in one of the holes at the bottom. I can therefore infer that to get to something else besides these holes, I need something not accounted for yet in the theory of pachinko.

me: What you just said makes no sense at all if you're dealing with a pachinko machine that has a trillion holes.

Whoops, actually on rereading Bryan's post, it doesn't quite say what I thought it did. I thought you were saying that you can't see a path to the hole that the ball is in. Instead, you're saying the ball is not in the pachinko machine. That makes even LESS sense than my original interpretation. Get your own analogy.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What you just said makes no sense at all if you're dealing with a pachinko machine that has a trillion holes.


What you just said is consistent with the reviews of Dawkins, Coyne, etc. so you're in good company.

It also demonstrates (what I believe to be) a lack of understanding of Behe's argument. I'm probably wrong, since I haven't read it yet. Someday.

What I've pieced together is that Behe says we can study the actual history of a bazillion* generations of the malaria parasite, and see what evolution has been able to accomplish, and that is more generations than were available for the entire history of mammals.

You don't have a trillion holes. You have at most what malaria has had, which is way more than all the mammals put together that have ever lived.

Do the math. If malaria has not been able to solve a problem (the sickle-cell defense) in it's bazillion opportunities, why think that mammals have been able to evolve so much more, with orders of magnitude less chances.

Handwaving by you and Dawkins doesn't even begin to answer this challenge.

Bryan

*a really big number used when I can't remember or don't know the actual number
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I don't think it's really helpful by trying to establish the existence of God by pointing to various errors, gaps, discrepancies in a scientific theory such as evolution.

If say in a hundred years science is able to fill in those gaps, or create an alternative theory which better explains the facts, then that would mean God doesn't exist.

So the real problem with Behe's logic isn't that he can presumably tear apart current theories of evolutionary biology--I will assume that he can, and let's say evolution is a worthless theory--it's that he's basing his argument for the existence of God on that refutation.

This is akin to someone walking around with a sign that says, "The world will end in 10 days." On the 11th day, he needs to come up with a new theology.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I don't think it's really helpful by trying to establish the existence of God by pointing to various errors, gaps, discrepancies in a scientific theory such as evolution.

Probably true. I just don't see ID trying to do that. At least not in the effort to develop ID as science. As a political movement, a different story.

If say in a hundred years science is able to fill in those gaps, or create an alternative theory which better explains the facts, then that would mean God doesn't exist.


That conclusion is not warranted

So the real problem with Behe's logic isn't that he can presumably tear apart current theories of evolutionary biology--I will assume that he can, and let's say evolution is a worthless theory--it's that he's basing his argument for the existence of God on that refutation.


Behe is trying to develop ID as a science. So Behe does not base his argument for God on ID, because he doesn't use ID-as-science to argue for God in the first place. Any theological implications of his work are outside of science, and he is careful to distinguish the two. Yes, he believes the designer is God, but it is not because science tells him so.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It also demonstrates (what I believe to be) a lack of understanding of Behe's argument. I'm probably wrong, since I haven't read it yet.


Matt. 7:1-5 Do not judge lest you be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
What I've pieced together is that Behe says we can study the actual history of a bazillion* generations of the malaria parasite, and see what evolution has been able to accomplish, and that is more generations than were available for the entire history of mammals.

You don't have a trillion holes. You have at most what malaria has had, which is way more than all the mammals put together that have ever lived.

Do the math. If malaria has not been able to solve a problem (the sickle-cell defense) in it's bazillion opportunities, why think that mammals have been able to evolve so much more, with orders of magnitude less chances.


Problems with the above analysis:

1) Generation time may not be closely linked to the rate of evolution (Huttley GA, Wakefield MJ, Easteal S. Rates of Genome Evolution and Branching Order from Whole Genome Analysis. Mol Biol Evol. 2007 Jul 25; [Epub ahead of print]).

2) Even if it is, the effect is probably small. Consider mice vs. humans: a difference in generation time of ~100 fold, but only a 1.5 to 3 fold difference in evolution rate (Mol Phylogenet Evol. 1996 Feb;5(1):182-7.)

3) It assumes that there aren't any strains of plasmodium that haven't evolved resistance to the protection given to carriers of the sickle-cell mutation. Clearly, some strains aren't terribly affected by the carrier status of the infected human ( Mol Med. 1997 Sep;3(9):581-92.), which may suggest that they have evolved some type of resistance.

4) It ignores the fact that plasmodium has rapidly evolved antibiotic resistances. So, even if we assume that there are no plasmodium strains resistant to the sickle cell defense, clearly some "problems" faced by plasmodium are more difficult to evolve a solution to than others. Therefore, to argue that this one case proves that mammalian evolution is impossible is absurd.

5) Only ~10% of people in regions with endemic malaria carrier the sickle cell mutation, which means, from plasmodium's point of view, that 90% of the population is still susceptible to infection, reducing the pressure on the organism to evolve a resistance to it. In addition, being a carrier doesn't not prevent you from being infected by plasmodium; rather, it reduces the severity of the disease. The plasmodium may quite happily continue it's life cycle. It's possible that there is no "problem to solve:" the gain from evolving a resistance could easily be smaller than the loss in fitness caused by that same change.

So, there are at least five major holes in Behe's argument. No wonder that Behe's ideas don't get much respect from the scientific community.

-Anthony

BTW, how does one "study the actual history of a bazillion* generations of the malaria parasite"? It sounds like more smoke and mirrors to me.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Problems with the above analysis:


I can't really comment on everything, because I don't know how my characterization of Behe's arguments actually match his real argument.

I guess I'll have to break down and actually read it.

As to #4, Behe's not arguing that evolution can't do anything. Evolving resistence is demonstrably what it can do.

#5 seems like a good counter argument on the face of it.

#1: faster generation time gives you more probabilistic resources, more opportunities for mutation to happen.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What I've pieced together is that Behe says we can study the actual history of a bazillion* generations of the malaria parasite, and see what evolution has been able to accomplish, and that is more generations than were available for the entire history of mammals.

You don't have a trillion holes. You have at most what malaria has had...



And oddly enough, the intelligent designer never stepped in, either. Aren't those experiements as negative for ID as they supposedly are for evolution?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I can't really comment on everything, because I don't know how my characterization of Behe's arguments actually match his real argument.

I guess I'll have to break down and actually read it.


You're defending something you haven't read?

As to #4, Behe's not arguing that evolution can't do anything. Evolving resistence is demonstrably what it can do.

And, how is that fundamental different from resistance to sickle cell carriers? It's all changes to DNA.

#1: faster generation time gives you more probabilistic resources, more opportunities for mutation to happen.

Not necessarily. In E. coli mutations rates are considerably higher in stationary phase than they are in log phase (i.e., slower generation times vs. faster generation times) (Science 28 November 2003 302: 1558-1560). And, if you read the reference I provided in my last post, you'd see another example that suggests your assertion is false.

-Anthony
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
And oddly enough, the intelligent designer never stepped in, either. Aren't those experiements as negative for ID as they supposedly are for evolution?


Short answer is no.

ID is not testing or expecting the on-going activity of a designer, only the historical artifacts of design. What you imply is like archeologists standing around staring at a rock, waiting for someone to come along and chip them, to find support for their theory of intelligent agency behind arrowheads
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You're defending something you haven't read?


Yes, and I made that clear several times. Are you rebutting something you haven't read?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
ID is not testing or expecting the on-going activity of a designer


What data would disprove the existence of a designer?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
What data would disprove the existence of a designer?

Personally I don't believe in a sentient designer. However, I am the first to admit that it is not falsifiable. It is verifiable (e.g. if the designer shows up and shows us how he/she did it). But it cannot be negated. I think one reason the ID movement started was because Genesis (pretty much the whole thing...creation through flood) has been so soundly trounced by science that this was the only avenue left to get religion into schools.

There may very well be some sentient that set the universe in motion and is sitting back watching (i.e. does not interfere). Can't prove it. And it really wouldn't make any difference anyway. Science will still tell us how the universe works, designed or not. So there's really no place for I.D. in science class. Keep it in church where it belongs.

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I think one reason the ID movement started was because Genesis (pretty much the whole thing...creation through flood) has been so soundly trounced by science that this was the only avenue left to get religion into schools.


You mean one popular interpretation of Genesis. There is another view that takes Genesis literally, but doesn't conflict with modern science.

www.reasons.org
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
If malaria has not been able to solve a problem (the sickle-cell defense)

What makes you think they haven't? The position of equilibrium for a disease and a host population is tolerance, not mortality.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You mean one popular interpretation of Genesis. There is another view that takes Genesis literally, but doesn't conflict with modern science.

The www.reasons.org view does not agree with the 6 day creation view, which would be the one that takes Genesis literally the way that AiG does. The link I prefer to rebut the statement that science has trounced Genesis would be this one:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

I would add that near the top of the web page there is a link which argues study of evolution is of no real use to mankind. It also gives one example where information from the Bible has provided meaningful information to a scientist who was able to put it to good use scientifically. This would be reason for the literal view of creation in Genisis to be taught in place of evolution.

By the way, I did get a chance to visit the Creation Museum that just opened in May. It is a very well designed and constructed museum, and I would highly recommend it for anyone. I may have a little bias being that My Brother works there, but besides my own impression of the museum, I have heard of very complimentary comments from the staff of another museum. It really is very impressive.

JMHO

Paul
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 16
The www.reasons.org view does not agree with the 6 day creation view, which would be the one that takes Genesis literally the way that AiG does. The link I prefer to rebut the statement that science has trounced Genesis would be this one:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/


And the link I prefer to rebut that is:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

A bunch of people signing their names to a piece of paper does not make a scientific theory.

By the way, I did get a chance to visit the Creation Museum that just opened in May. It is a very well designed and constructed museum, and I would highly recommend it for anyone. I may have a little bias being that My Brother works there, but besides my own impression of the museum, I have heard of very complimentary comments from the staff of another museum. It really is very impressive.

Yes, everything I've read points to the fact that it is a very well-designed and entertaining fantasy theme park.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I would add that near the top of the web page there is a link which argues study of evolution is of no real use to mankind.


Is that your position as well?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And the link I prefer to rebut that is:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

A bunch of people signing their names to a piece of paper does not make a scientific theory.


First let me point out this statement from AiG about the NCSE:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/06/08/genesis-nemesis

“The National Center for Science Education” (NCSE) sounds as if the organization is serving the noble purpose of promoting science education. So what’s our concern? The group’s ostensibly positive name (and that it is “for” something) obscures the fact that the very mission of the NCSE is actually a highly negative one: to aggressively counter the creationist and intelligent design movements.1 That has been witnessed time and time again in recent weeks as NCSE staff frequently went to the press to attack AiG's Creation Museum, which eventually opened two Mondays ago.

The NCSE link that you gave argues that:

Creationists draw up these lists to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis."

The list of scientists on AiG's website provides evidence that in the past and present there are qualified scientists who are creationists and are doing significant scientific research and are making scientific determinations supporting the creationist view. From the link I gave above (note that Dr. Scott represents the NCSE):

Dr. Scott declared that creation and ID “violate a key component of science”—and that science is limited to naturalism. Also, that one can’t “put God in a test tube”; and that “God must be put aside.” But who, we ask, has determined to put those kinds of limits on scientific inquiry? Certainly not the scores of creationist scientists throughout history and in the present who continue to provide exciting and excellent research without the need for a prior commitment to naturalism.

To rebut the statements of highly degreed evolution scientists who make remarks similar to the one by Dr. Scott, Creationists must provide evidence that there are scientists of equal or better scientific stature who support the creationist view. The work of such creationist scientists is of the same level of scientific integrity as evolutionist scientists and provides compelling scientific evidence to support Creationist views.

Yes, everything I've read points to the fact that it is a very well-designed and entertaining fantasy theme park.

It takes what you think of as fantasy and makes a well structured, thought provoking, serious experience that brings the visitor as close as anything can to the reality of the creation of the universe, the world and all living things in it. The life-size and realistic looking exhibits combined with accompanying text, theatres, and videos all presented in a logical sequence provide an experience that makes sense of AiG's views of creation. A visit to the museum will convince you that it is far more than a fantasy theme park. If it was only a fantasy theme park, it would not have received the serious attacks from the NCSE that it has.

JMHO

Paul
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Is that your position as well?

I find that the creation viewpoint as literally given in Genisis really leaves no room for evolution as the way different kinds of lifeforms proliferated on the planet. There may be some value to explain how some variances occur due to mutations, but from my viewpoint, it confuses the issue of how life on earth became what it is today.

The issue of what to teach in the classroom and what to subject children to is a religious and poiltically charged issue. It is highly controvercial. I do not think that creationism should be completely banned from the classroom, neither do I object to evolution being taught. There is no absolute proof that one or the other is right.

JMHO

Paul
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I do not think that creationism should be completely banned from the classroom


Luckily for us, SCOTUS already ruled in that case.



There is no absolute proof that one or the other is right.


That's an irrelevant remark. There's no absolute proof of anything in science. But all the evidence that exists is in favor of evolution. There is no evidence, for example, that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
The work of such creationist scientists is of the same level of scientific integrity as evolutionist scientists and provides compelling scientific evidence to support Creationist views.


Except for the fact that it does not make testable predictions, and provides no data that supports the existence of the supernatural.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
I find that the creation viewpoint as literally given in Genisis really leaves no room for evolution as the way different kinds of lifeforms proliferated on the planet.

This is a true statement. If Genesis is literally true, then evolution could not have happened. Do you have any support that a Genesis-style creation actually happened over and above criticism of evolutionary theory?

There may be some value to explain how some variances occur due to mutations, but from my viewpoint, it confuses the issue of how life on earth became what it is today.

Well, if it's valuable, then it's worthy of study. If it's confusing, then it's worthy of more study. A subject's difficulty does not necessarily mean the subject is incorrect.

The issue of what to teach in the classroom and what to subject children to is a religious and poiltically charged issue. It is highly controvercial.

This is also true, but irrelevant.

It is highly controvercial. I do not think that creationism should be completely banned from the classroom, neither do I object to evolution being taught. There is no absolute proof that one or the other is right.

Many people advocate a "teach all sides and let the kids decide" method for biology, but they would never advocate this position for other topics of study. We don't teach astrology in an astronomy class and let the kids decide which theory of stellar dynamics to believe. We don't teach the idea that the Holocaust never happened in World History. We don't teach them about phlogiston, or aether, or epicycles, or the stork theory of reproduction, or alchemy. At best these disproven subjects may get mentioned in legitimate science classes to provide reference points of where the sciences came from, and how better evidence and methodology allowed us to correct previously held error.

But if you want to teach kids that Christians believe that God created a 14-billion-year-old universe in six days, that's best saved for the Religious Studies class, along with other religions' sacred but still unsupported beliefs.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The www.reasons.org view does not agree with the 6 day creation view, which would be the one that takes Genesis literally the way that AiG does.

That is correct, it is not a literal view in the same way that AIG interprets Genesis. But it is literal in that they believe in 6 literal long periods of time, a literal Adam and Eve, etc.

I belong to a church were all the various Christian views on creation and evolution are held by at least some. AIGs views are very popular there.

Most people who come to this board holding AIG's views don't last long. They are relentlessly ridiculed and mocked by the non-theists until they leave.

I'd be happy to dialog with you on the issues as time permits.

Bryan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 20
Most people who come to this board holding AIG's views don't last long. They are relentlessly ridiculed and mocked by the non-theists until they leave.

I wasn't aware that asking someone for their evidence constituted "mocking". Mostly what I have read so far (and I admit now I have not back-read the entire board from its beginning) are "non-theists" pointing out observable facts and asking how these fit into the Genesis myth. Unable to answer the AiG folks leave rather than use their gray matter to see reason.

I don't mean to sound harsh. I really don't. I have patience with matters of faith. I won't argue them, or ridicule them. They are non-falsifiable. But when you tell someone the sky is blue and they say "no it isn't", I tend to lose my patience (yes, that is a metaphor, not to be taken literally...kinda like the Bible). Matters of fact supersede matters of faith. For example, the universe is NOT 6K years old. The 15B year number may be off a bit...heck, let's say it's off by 50%...it's still a lot more than 6K years. Blind faith that causes people to close their eyes and their minds is, in my opinion, detrimental and possibly even "evil". Certainly teaching that there is a "conspiracy" of science to destroy Christianity is evil (as all lies are evil). Scientists don't care whether an answer corroborates or contradicts Genesis, they just want to know the answer.

So the bronze-age authors got some things wrong. So what? That doesn't invalidate the faith in a deity. It just means they got some of the details wrong. Or maybe they never intended it as a historical narrative, but rather as an instrument to teach morals and lessons about life (as they saw them in the bronze age)**. If there is a God then (s)he gave us minds with which to reason, and the curiosity to explore the universe around us. None of those explorations will ever disprove his/her existence.

1poorguy

**Actually, Constantine called the first Council of Nicea to unify the various different beliefs at the time into a single cohesive faith system. It was largely for political reasons. Participants brought their various "scriptures" for incorporation, and after much debate they produced the first "book of books", or Bible. The diverse sources of these "scriptures" is why you see some things repeated almost verbatim, as well as contradictions from one book to the next. Today this single system has fragmented into many different sects, all of whom have slightly different interpretations and/or translations.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That is correct, it is not a literal view in the same way that AIG interprets Genesis. But it is literal in that they believe in 6 literal long periods of time, a literal Adam and Eve, etc.

I belong to a church were all the various Christian views on creation and evolution are held by at least some. AIGs views are very popular there.

Most people who come to this board holding AIG's views don't last long. They are relentlessly ridiculed and mocked by the non-theists until they leave.

I'd be happy to dialog with you on the issues as time permits.


Bryan, I want to remind you of our recent discussion about Don McLeroy, the new education head of Texas.
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=25726065

I still don't know why you think there aren't mainstream people who really have views on evolution that are as clueless as Don McLeroy's appeared to be in his press comments. Yet most of the people who briefly arrive on this board to argue against evolution sound more like Don than like you.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
“The National Center for Science Education” (NCSE) sounds as if the organization is serving the noble purpose of promoting science education. So what’s our concern?

"That they keep picking on us."

The group’s ostensibly positive name (and that it is “for” something) obscures the fact that the very mission of the NCSE is actually a highly negative one: to aggressively counter the creationist and intelligent design movements.1 That has been witnessed time and time again in recent weeks as NCSE staff frequently went to the press to attack AiG's Creation Museum, which eventually opened two Mondays ago.

The creationist and intelligent design movement is itself a negative campaign. There is no "theory of creationism," and all the arguments boil down to either religion, or bad-mouthing the teaching of evolution. As I learned in algebra, a negative response to a negative agenda is a positive action.

To rebut the statements of highly degreed evolution scientists who make remarks similar to the one by Dr. Scott, Creationists must provide evidence that there are scientists of equal or better scientific stature who support the creationist view.

No they don't. What they should do is provide evidence that their claims have some kind of scientific merit.

The work of such creationist scientists is of the same level of scientific integrity as evolutionist scientists and provides compelling scientific evidence to support Creationist views.

The creationists do almost no scientific work whatsoever. They publish books in creationist-owned press, perform PR and political activism, and build theme parks. They spend almost no time at all working to persuade scientists in peer reviewed publications that their ideas have scientific merit. They have a purely religious agenda and deliberately try to appeal to as gullible an audience as they can.

It takes what you think of as fantasy and makes a well structured, thought provoking, serious experience that brings the visitor as close as anything can to the reality of the creation of the universe, the world and all living things in it. The life-size and realistic looking exhibits combined with accompanying text, theatres, and videos all presented in a logical sequence provide an experience that makes sense of AiG's views of creation. A visit to the museum will convince you that it is far more than a fantasy theme park. If it was only a fantasy theme park, it would not have received the serious attacks from the NCSE that it has.

I agree with you: it requires a theme park geared at non-science people to make it appear as if they have an inkling of what they are talking about. They tried doing real science instead, and they've gotten lambasted at every turn because they're really bad at it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
They tried doing real science instead, and they've gotten lambasted at every turn because they're really bad at it.

That is SOOOOO true.

I have mentioned previously that my coworker put me onto AiG, and he strongly recommended the work of Humphreys for me to see what mainstream science was trying to ignore or suppress. He tells me he even met Humphreys once and was "impressed". Anyway, I went through his papers and they're rubbish. He used bad control samples, his non-control sampling was questionable (at best), on at least one occasion he used the WRONG equation for what he was trying to do....it was sad. He never could have gotten that into a real refereed journal. When challenged about these deficiencies his response was basically "you don't know what you're talking about". I note also that he has made no effort to refine or reproduce his results with further samplings (preferably from different sites around the world).

When you've made up your mind ahead of time what the "correct" answer will be then one shouldn't be surprised if the work becomes shoddy. Instead of trying to "prove" YEC creationism (or evolution) he should be testing it to see if it works. That's the key difference between the so-called Creation Scientists and real scientists.

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Many people advocate a "teach all sides and let the kids decide" method for biology, but they would never advocate this position for other topics of study. We don't teach astrology in an astronomy class and let the kids decide which theory of stellar dynamics to believe. We don't teach the idea that the Holocaust never happened in World History. We don't teach them about phlogiston, or aether, or epicycles, or the stork theory of reproduction, or alchemy.

that's only because there isn't a powerful (and walthy?) political movement to introduce those things.

i'm sure a poll of Astrologers would show THEY think astrology should be taught alongside Astrophysics ..they just don't have the clout that Christianity does (maybe if they focused their efforts)


-
..... even Christianity has other disagreements ..they've just had to choose which battles ( on CF recently , FMNH posted about stellar-evolution .. and was told "nonsense" )
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
So the bronze-age authors got some things wrong. So what? That doesn't invalidate the faith in a deity. It just means they got some of the details wrong.

of course it does .. key to their Faith is that the book was NOT written by bronze-age goat-herders, but by god hisownself. their god doesn't 'get some details wrong'

if any part of the bible IS wrong, any other part might be ...how to decide?

if the bible is wrong, those wacky Hindus might be right


modern science completely discredits Christianity.



=
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Hi
I'm new to this board, and confess I have not read the whole thread. Whew got that out of the way.

I have just a couple of points. That I, as a Christian was taught both. Here is why.

In the early 1960's my father, who is no longer living, was woken in the middle of the night by God and led to the Book of Revelation. In the Book of Revelation is a pictorial of the creation of the solar system.

Well, he took the information, and in combination with Einstein's information he expanded the base. Now those were in the days before home computers. he would program the calculator and it would run for days... As a kid we used to joke Daddy's playing with his numbers again. this went on for more than 20 years. He wrote the thesis, ran the final numbers through a computer and had it copywrited.

When I had physics and astronomy..in college I would come home and he was no help, as the current text is incomplete.. well geeez... I would laugh, all I wanted to do was pass, not rewrite the book.

Now I know the thesis is correct, and that current technology is not advanced enough. So when it is, I will publish my late fathers paper.

In my view,the creationist sometimes lean on their own interpretations, with out going and asking Him directly. As a Christian from my perspective asking is more important than simply reading. Now maybe not all of the creationists are that way I do not know and I cannot speak for them. It is simply observation.

MS
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
of course it does .. key to their Faith is that the book was NOT written by bronze-age goat-herders, but by god hisownself. their god doesn't 'get some details wrong'

I don't know any Christians that say that. Most say it was "inspired" by God, but not actually penned by him. History shows clearly He didn't write it (ref: both Councils of Nicea, Council of Trent, etc).

if any part of the bible IS wrong, any other part might be ...how to decide?

I know some fundies, but I also know those that take it as more allegorical. They wouldn't maintain that the stories are LITERALLY true. I recall reading a few years ago that even the Catholic Church does not take Genesis literally (though someone will correct me if I'm in error). Not sure about the other books.

modern science completely discredits Christianity.

You would have to be more specific before I could agree with that. Clearly science has not disproven the existence of a deity, nor can it. Most of the OT is demonstrably wrong (Genesis, Exodus, etc). We don't really know if Jesus of Nazareth actually lived. I've read assertions that he did (but was not divine) and others that claim he was invented sometime in the 5th century by combining names of two different 'gods' (IIRC). We know there was a Soddom and Gamorrah (they found them), as well as a Jericho and some other places.

Mind you, this is just me with my scientist hat on. Personally, I agree with your statement. But there are matters of fact and matters of opinion, and I do my best not to mix them (though not always successfully!).

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
They wouldn't maintain that the stories are LITERALLY true.


There are a lot of people who claim they are literally true. Kirk Cameron was recently on Nightline claiming it, and Janet Folger has a popular video in which she knocks down strawman after strawman about evolution, and then claims the Bible is 100% accurate. There used to be clips of it on youtube.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
http://www.faith2action.org/

Near the bottom of this page, there is a clip of part of Folger's anti-evolution video.

Does this strike anyone as an honest argument?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
http://www.faith2action.org/

Near the bottom of this page, there is a clip of part of Folger's anti-evolution video.

Does this strike anyone as an honest argument?


Well, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that pauls59 will say it's "of the same level of scientific integrity as evolutionist scientists and provides compelling scientific evidence to support Creationist views."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Most of the OT is demonstrably wrong (Genesis, Exodus, etc).

I think your statement is wrong or exaggerated. Archeology has confirmed a lot of it (places, people, events).

What part of Exodus has been demonstrated to be wrong? Or Genesis for that matter?

What are you talking about?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
There are a lot of people who claim they are literally true.

Oh yes. There are. But I think most Christians aren't quite so "fundy". Most that I know don't use literal interpretations (but I knew a few that do).

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
What part of Exodus has been demonstrated to be wrong?


The part with the Jews?


Or Genesis for that matter?


The part with Adamn and Eve?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
What part of Exodus has been demonstrated to be wrong?

All of it. It never happened. There is no record of the plagues of Egypt, no record of a slave revolt, no record of the freeing of the slaves by the Pharaoh, and no evidence of hundreds of thousands of people wandering the desert for 40 years (no garbage heaps -a favorite among archeologists-, no fire pits, no temporary dwellings, nothing). The Egyptians were fanatical record keepers. There is no record of any of these events. And you can't have that many people wandering the desert for 40 years without leaving a trace.

It never happened. It was just a good story.

As for Genesis...it took more than 6 days, and Noah's Flood never happened (no record in the geologic column, plus some insurmountable problems...my favorite being the existence of the koala bear, but there are others). Again, just a story with about as much credibility as the story of Raven in the native American traditions.

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
feedmeNOWhuman wrote:

"There is no evidence, for example, that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time."

The following links provide evidence that the predominant view of dinosaurs being millions of years old is unlikely. It is more likely that Dinosaurs existed only a few thousand years ago or less. This would make it very likely that man and dinosaurs did live at the same time.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dinosaurs.asp

JMHO

Paul
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What part of Exodus has been demonstrated to be wrong?

All of it. It never happened. There is no record of the plagues of Egypt, no record of a slave revolt, no record of the freeing of the slaves by the Pharaoh, and no evidence of hundreds of thousands of people wandering the desert for 40 years (no garbage heaps -a favorite among archeologists-, no fire pits, no temporary dwellings, nothing). The Egyptians were fanatical record keepers. There is no record of any of these events. And you can't have that many people wandering the desert for 40 years without leaving a trace.


Are you familiar with the works of K. A. Kitchen? According to my bible, Wikipedia: Kitchen is one of the leading experts on Biblical History and the Egyptian Third Intermediate Period having written over 250 books and journal articles on these and other subjects since the mid-1950s. His book, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 BC), is universally regarded by historians as the standard and most comprehensive treatment on this era.

In his book On the Reliability of the OT (2003), Kitchen explains why you wouldn't expect to find any Egyptian records of such events, nor would you expect to find any remains of the Hebrews in the area of Egypt where they would have most likely lived.

And no temporary dwellings from 40 years wandering? Come on, just what do you expect to be left to find from stick tents with animal skins?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You said it could be demonstrated that the events of Exodus didn't happen. All you said to support that view is say archeologists haven't found anything. Do you know how many things in the OT have been pointed to in the past 200 years, with skeptics saying "No evidence of x has every been found, so the bible is in error", only to have archeologists find the evidence later? This is kind of like a "god of the gaps" argument in reverse.

Either the evidence will be found in time, or there is no evidence left of those people and their lives in Egypt, in which case evidence will not be found. But you can't demonstrate that it never happened, you can only assume it didn't.

As for Genesis...it took more than 6 days, and Noah's Flood never happened

You've ignored my previous comments about other interpretations of Genesis. I just assumed it was because you didn't want to hear about ways of understanding it that undercut your simplitic caricatures of the bible which are easy to refute. If I have it wrong, I apologise.

The six "days" of Genesis can be interpreted as 6 long periods of time, which line up remarkably well with the chronology of events depicted by modern science. So much so, in fact, that it played a part in Antony Flew's rejection of atheism. The flood of Noah was a local, Mesopotamian-plain-wide event, not a global deluge.

In light of this, how exactly has it been demonstrated that Genesis is wrong? I don't see it.

Bryan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The part with Adamn


That was actually a typo!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The part with Adamn


That was actually a typo!


Whatever you say . . .
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
and Noah's Flood never happened (no record in the geologic column, plus some insurmountable problems...my favorite being the existence of the koala bear, but there are others).

just curious .what's so special about Koala?

( my favorite is the Camel )


Again, just a story with about as much credibility as the story of Raven in the native American traditions.


AACK! you don't believe the Raven stories???



=b
...... believes Raven
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The part with Adamn


That was actually a typo!


Sure, but who gives a dam?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
With regard to The work of such creationist scientists is of the same level of scientific integrity as evolutionist scientists and provides compelling scientific evidence to support Creationist views
feedmeNOWhuman wrote:

Except for the fact that it does not make testable predictions, and provides no data that supports the existence of the supernatural.

There is a lot of scientific research that is testable and supports the existence of a creator. Evolutionists prefer not to admit the existence of a creator and, with presumtions that they make about evolution, find ways to make science fit their presumptions, even though their use of the scientific evidence is unlikely. To evolutionists, science has to fit their view because they know that their view is right, based upon presumption.

JMHO

Paul
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I would add that near the top of the web page there is a link which argues study of evolution is of no real use to mankind.

I can't seem to find it. Could you post a link directly to that page? Other people think differently. The National Institutes of Health, for instance, had a four part speaker series on the relationship of evolution to medicine.

It also gives one example where information from the Bible has provided meaningful information to a scientist who was able to put it to good use scientifically.

So does the Iliad. Would you use that to argue that Greek mythology should be taught as science? In addition, the Bible suggests that the value of pi is 3, which is clearly wrong and suggests that it should not be used scientifically.

This would be reason for the literal view of creation in Genisis to be taught in place of evolution.

Would that be the version in chapter one or the version in chapter two? The two accounts provide contradictory time lines.

-Anthony
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
JamesBrown wrote:

This is a true statement. If Genesis is literally true, then evolution could not have happened. Do you have any support that a Genesis-style creation actually happened over and above criticism of evolutionary theory?

There is support that a Genesis-style creation actually happened over and above criticism of evolutionary theory. There is support that mutations don't add new DNA information which is required for new kinds of lifeforms to emerge. In modern day time, species are becoming extinct faster than new ones are forming, and no new kind of lifeforms have evolved. The formation of even single cell DNA would strech a long distance, and the mechanism required to form it is very complex, as well as the other aspects of single cell organisms. The rate of increase of salt in the oceans would make them much saltier than they are now if oceans have existed as long as evolutionary views require. There are more, and they are on the AiG website.

JMHO

Paul
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Regarding the two links you posted, the first was about the dino soft tissue that was discovered a couple years back. If it was true that dinos lived only thousands of years ago, we'd find a lot more of it. But we've only found it one time. The bones came from a layer of rock that is millions of years old, and no human remains have ever been found from that era. We find tissue of mammals all the time from thousands of years ago--mammoths, etc. It's not unexpected. But dino tissue has only been found one time out of the thousands and thousands of dino fossils. It was a freak occurance, and very interesting, but it hardly disproves the notion of dinos being millions of years old. Note that the soft tissue analysis is also consistent with birds having evolved from dinos.


Your other link starts off this way:

The extinction of the dinosaurs is one of the greatest mysteries of secular science. It would not be if people believed the true eye-witness account of Earth’s history recorded in the Bible. This reveals that:

Land animals (this includes dinosaurs) and man were created on Day 6 about 6,000 years ago—so dinosaurs lived at the same time as people.



Boy, talk about making assumptions. "The Bible says so, and therefore it's true."


Later on, it disputes that an impact killed the dinos because:

The extinction was not that sudden (using evolutionary/long age interpretations of the geological record). But the spread in the geological record makes sense if much of the sedimentary deposits were formed in Noah’s Flood.

Extinctions don’t correlate with crater dates.

The iridium enrichment, supposedly a key proof of meteor impact, is not nearly as clearly defined as claimed.

Drill cores of the apparent ‘smoking gun’ crater on the Yucatán peninsula in south-east Mexico do not support the idea that it is an impact crater.



These statements are dead wrong. Even worse, they are irrelevant. The fact is that evolution is not dependent on the dinos having been killed by a meteor.

Plus, you don't see a genetic bottleneck in humans or other animals as you'd expect if there was a massive extinction from a flood.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
In modern day time, species are becoming extinct faster than new ones are forming, and no new kind of lifeforms have evolved.


New species have been observed evolving both in the lab and in nature.



The rate of increase of salt in the oceans would make them much saltier than they are now if oceans have existed as long as evolutionary views require.


Please, not this again. This has been refuted about 6 billion times. Just like the "moon receding" and the "sun shrinking" and the "earth's magnetic field" ones. They all assume linear change.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
There is a lot of scientific research that is testable and supports the existence of a creator. Evolutionists prefer not to admit the existence of a creator and, with presumtions that they make about evolution, find ways to make science fit their presumptions, even though their use of the scientific evidence is unlikely. To evolutionists, science has to fit their view because they know that their view is right, based upon presumption.

Boy, that's is a new one. "A lot," but no specifics, hmmm?

Please suggest one experiment that has been done, where the results were not assumed in advance, and in which the wrong result might tend to disprove the existence of a creator.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
There is support that a Genesis-style creation actually happened over and above criticism of evolutionary theory. There is support that mutations don't add new DNA information which is required for new kinds of lifeforms to emerge.

Assertion is not proof.

I'll repeat James Brown's challenge in slightly different form to you:

Please provide evidence other than criticism of evolutionary theory that all lifeforms that exist today and those that have gone extinct over the last 600 million years were created in 6 24 hour days 6006 years ago.

g2w
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
bdhinton wrote:

I belong to a church were all the various Christian views on creation and evolution are held by at least some. AIGs views are very popular there.

I imagine that most churches do have members vith somewhat different views such as in your church. That is understandable with the different views I have heard in sermons of different Pastors. I do not think the different views matter as much as what is in a person's heart.

Most people who come to this board holding AIG's views don't last long. They are relentlessly ridiculed and mocked by the non-theists until they leave.

I am new to this board, but I do get a sense that there is some intimidation on the board. My recent visit to the Creation Museum has sparked my interest in this subject and thus I thought that it would be interesting to have some dialog on this board. Right now, I find it challenging to make discussion here. That is actually what I am seeking.

I am very impressed with AiG. They have a wealth of information on their website. The Creation Museum is very impressive. There were a tremendous amount of resources used to build the Museum, millions of dollars in cost and much more donated. AiG really has to be taken seriously, especially now with the new Museum.

I'd be happy to dialog with you on the issues as time permits.

Likewise. I have been a Christian for decades, but have not given interest to this subject as much as now.

JMHO

Paul
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I agree with you: it requires a theme park geared at non-science people to make it appear as if they have an inkling of what they are talking about. They tried doing real science instead, and they've gotten lambasted at every turn because they're really bad at it.

Have you been to the museum to get a firsthand view of what you are talking about?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
of course it does .. key to their Faith is that the book was NOT written by bronze-age goat-herders, but by god hisownself. their god doesn't 'get some details wrong'

I don't know any Christians that say that. Most say it was "inspired" by God, but not actually penned by him.



i think that's a distinction without a difference ....

more to the point .... an omniscient omnipotent should be able to 'inspire' accuracy. if instead, it 'inspires' ambiguous jibber-jabber that's shown mostly false only a couple millennia in the future .... ?


if any part of the bible IS wrong, any other part might be ...how to decide?
-------
I know some fundies, but I also know those that take it as more allegorical. They wouldn't maintain that the stories are LITERALLY true. I recall reading a few years ago that even the Catholic Church does not take Genesis literally (though someone will correct me if I'm in error). Not sure about the other books.


and there's the problem (in my OPONION) .... if one part is allegory, why not the others?
if Adam is just a story ..why not Moses? if Moses, why not Jesus? if Jesus is a fictional character ("inspired by true events!"), what's left of Christianity? (otoh, if he's not ..maybe he was serious about rich guys not getting into heaven?)

modern science completely discredits Christianity.
=========
You would have to be more specific before I could agree with that. Clearly science has not disproven the existence of a deity, nor can it. Most of the OT is demonstrably wrong (Genesis, Exodus, etc). We don't really know if Jesus of Nazareth actually lived.


some days i feel like no one's reading my posts so i say something outlandish to test if anyone is <g>

science hasn't disproven 'a deity' (i'm still holding out for Devi) ... but it calls the OT god into serious question.

..one of the problems with 'discrediting' Christianity is that there's not much you can say about it that all Christians will agree .... but most seem to think the god of the OT exists.
most seem convinced Jesus was real.


=
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I can't seem to find it. Could you post a link directly to that page? Other people think differently. The National Institutes of Health, for instance, had a four part speaker series on the relationship of evolution to medicine.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/newsletters/0405lead.asp

So does the Iliad. Would you use that to argue that Greek mythology should be taught as science? In addition, the Bible suggests that the value of pi is 3, which is clearly wrong and suggests that it should not be used scientifically.

Personally, I do not think my opinion so closely agrees with the article, as my response to my earlier post explains. Also, about the value of pi, see:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/pi.asp

Would that be the version in chapter one or the version in chapter two? The two accounts provide contradictory time lines.

See:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/genesis.asp#f1

JMHO

Paul
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Paul,

I do not think the different views matter as much as what is in a person's heart.

I don't think a person's position on creation vs. evolution affects his standing with God. It sounds like you don't either. It does impact his theology though, and I suggest we start there.

Right now, I find it challenging to make discussion here. That is actually what I am seeking.


Unless you have a lot of time and patience, you get too many questions (good question I might add) to deal with. I suggest you pick a person or two to interact with, and ignore the rest . . . not in order to be rude, but to be realistic.

I am very impressed with AiG. They have a wealth of information on their website. The Creation Museum is very impressive. There were a tremendous amount of resources used to build the Museum, millions of dollars in cost and much more donated. AiG really has to be taken seriously, especially now with the new Museum.


Whatever else you can say about AIG, you have to admit they do everything 1st class. Because of the amount of resources they bring to the effort, they have a big impact on this country, and so they do have to be taken seriously.

I have been a Christian for decades, but have not given interest to this subject as much as now.


I've been a Christian for a long time as well, but have studied C v. E since high school, more seriously in the past 4-5 years.

Bryan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Regarding the two links you posted, the first was about the dino soft tissue that was discovered a couple years back. If it was true that dinos lived only thousands of years ago, we'd find a lot more of it. But we've only found it one time.

Found only one time because the bone accidentaly broke and it was found. Because of the assumptions that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, nobody broke bones to look for soft tissue. Now that it was found by accident, a challenge has been made to look in more bones to see if soft tissue can be found in other bones.

Boy, talk about making assumptions. "The Bible says so, and therefore it's true."

This is not disturbing to those who put their faith in the Bible. Evolutionists make assumptions of their own, such as the one that the Earth was formed billions of years ago.

Plus, you don't see a genetic bottleneck in humans or other animals as you'd expect if there was a massive extinction from a flood.

The claim by AiG is that there was sufficient genetic variety after the flood to populate the Earth as it exists today. This is not a strong area in my understanding of genetics, so I have to go by faith a little here, but I may be able to research it and improve on it.

JMHO

Paul
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Unless you have a lot of time and patience, you get too many questions (good question I might add) to deal with. I suggest you pick a person or two to interact with, and ignore the rest . . . not in order to be rude, but to be realistic.



heh.

... i've noticed that ... 'you' need some way to 'splain you're not being rude, but just reailistic



(>
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
New species have been observed evolving both in the lab and in nature.

I don't dispute that. Different species may evolve in nature, but species may evolve by mutations that do not add to genetic information. Additional genetic information required for new kinds of animals or plants has not been shown to have happened in nature or the lab.

Please, not this again. This has been refuted about 6 billion times. Just like the "moon receding" and the "sun shrinking" and the "earth's magnetic field" ones. They all assume linear change.

The following link is very technical, I am not sure that I can get my arms around it. "Refuted about 6 billion times", spoken like a true evolutionist, sounds like "the earth is X billion years old" ;)

http://tccsa.tc/articles/ocean_sodium.html

JMHO

Paul
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
This is not disturbing to those who put their faith in the Bible. Evolutionists make assumptions of their own, such as the one that the Earth was formed billions of years ago.

Where were you educated ? Liberty University ?

The age of the universe is not an assumption but a conclusion derived from observable phenomena.

What makes more sense ?

That God "created" the universe with lots of clues laying about to point to how He did it or,

The Bible, which was written in part at least by Bronze age nomads with their creation myth(s) ?

And, to make matters worse, idiot fundamentalists add an additional assumption that the Bible is literally true which forces the believer to discard the evidence all about him in order to keep this insane assumption. It's as though the devil, if he existed, put this idea in the minds of otherwise normal and intelligent people in order to keep them from knowing the truth.

g2w
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Bryan,

Unless you have a lot of time and patience, you get too many questions (good question I might add) to deal with. I suggest you pick a person or two to interact with, and ignore the rest . . . not in order to be rude, but to be realistic.

Good advice, I generally like to take more time than I am now for each post, and I don't have the time to keep posting this way.

Whatever else you can say about AIG, you have to admit they do everything 1st class. Because of the amount of resources they bring to the effort, they have a big impact on this country, and so they do have to be taken seriously.

They can be a very good resource to me, especially since my brother works for them and is available to me for questions.

This is all I have time for tonight.

Paul
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
just curious .what's so special about Koala?

It's a really neat counter-example. If there was a global flood, as many maintain, why is there a koala bear? Is someone going to assert that this slow-moving arboreal animal that eats ONLY eucalyptus leaves traversed Australia, swam an ocean, then hiked an additional 8K miles to get to Noah's house, all while carrying a substantial supply of leaves (for the journey, plus 40/40 days/nights of rain, plus however long for the waters to recede and new trees to grow)?

A friend of mine whom I told this to decided to "work it out", assumed very speedy koalas, and given their food consumption rate estimates each needed at least 24 kilos of leaves. A really fat koala is at best 20 kilos.

A very studly little beastie to accomplish all this.

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
just curious .what's so special about Koala?
-----------
It's a really neat counter-example. If there was a global flood, as many maintain, why is there a koala bear? Is someone going to assert that this slow-moving arboreal animal that eats ONLY eucalyptus leaves traversed Australia, swam an ocean, then hiked an additional 8K miles to get to Noah's house, all while carrying a substantial supply of leaves (for the journey, plus 40/40 days/nights of rain, plus however long for the waters to recede and new trees to grow)?



ah ..... i guess MAYBE if you're thinking Jaguars and Camels are plausible .... Koalas are *maybe* less so <G>



A friend of mine whom I told this to decided to "work it out", assumed very speedy koalas, and given their food consumption rate estimates each needed at least 24 kilos of leaves. A really fat koala is at best 20 kilos.

A very studly little beastie to accomplish all this.


and very fast ....

this says
https://www.savethekoala.com/koalasdiet.html
they eat 200-500g leaves /day
AND sleep 18-22 hrs/day


=j
........ all magic i suspect
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
They have a wealth of information on their website.

Yes, AiG does. And while I cannot claim to have read it all, I've plowed through a very large chunk of it. I have yet to find one credible piece of work there. Not one.

I won't bore everyone again with my journey down this path. You can look at my postings here and especially the thread on the Atheist board "science of creationists". I detailed a few of the works I studied, and tore apart. Some very shoddy "science" on AiG. I went in expecting more (based on a coworker's recommendation to me), and was very disappointed. YEC creationism has no supporting science behind it.

Referencing another post, the dinosaur bone thing has been explained. It was one piece of interesting data I was not able to discount (way outside my area), and then another poster put up a link to an article that took care of it. I'll spend some time to find it and re-post the link here.

If you REALLY want to know and learn, then you need to examine both sides of this topic with an OPEN MIND. I found www.talkorigins.org covers most of the AiG points quite well. My background in physics made it unnecessary for some of the topics, but others (like the dino bones) are beyond my background.

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Have you been to the museum to get a firsthand view of what you are talking about?

A few weeks back, someone posted a series of many dozens of photos from the museum, including closeups of the displays and the accompanying text.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Bryan,

Are you familiar with the works of K. A. Kitchen?

Nope. When I have a bit of time I'll look him up.

Kitchen explains why you wouldn't expect to find any Egyptian records of such events, nor would you expect to find any remains of the Hebrews in the area of Egypt where they would have most likely lived.

Care to summarize in the interim??

And no temporary dwellings from 40 years wandering? Come on, just what do you expect to be left to find from stick tents with animal skins?

If they moved frequently I would expect garbage heaps, lots of small latrines, fire pits, graves, etc. If they moved less frequently then I would add crude stone shelters to the list.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

OK. You have that one.

Is it possible to disprove an event?? Probably not. Can I prove you did not go to the grocery yesterday? Not really. However, if you live in Podunk, IA, where there is no grocery and the highway was closed due to an accident, then I can infer you probably didn't go to the grocery.

Here we have several opportunities for data. Egyptian records. They recorded everything. Sometimes they went back and chiseled away references to someone, but the record was there. We find nothing on the mass-deaths of children. We find nothing on frogs and locusts and boils, etc, in rapid succession. We find nothing on a loss of slave labor, nor any indication of a reduction in labor output (implying they lost no workers). More opportunities lie in archeology. Where are the signs of a sizable population camping in the desert? The graves, fire pits for cooking, garbage heaps (humans always create garbage heaps, throughout history).

IF, and that's a big 'if', any of this is discovered then we would have to rethink the story. But with so many different bits of data that we could have but don't it stands to reason it probably isn't there. Sorta like the teapot orbiting between Mars and Jupiter**. We have no data to suggest it is there, and most people would agree it's ridiculous...but we can't prove it isn't.

Conversely, you cannot prove Exodus did happen. The only reference to it anywhere is in the Bible.

You've ignored my previous comments about other interpretations of Genesis.

Not deliberately, but I've only been on this board a short while and I don't have time to read every post. Feel free to link me to something.

The flood of Noah was a local, Mesopotamian-plain-wide event, not a global deluge.

That I would believe. Regional floods were (and are) commonplace. But the story loses a lot if it was just a relatively small area. The fundamentalist interpretation is that every living thing that wasn't on the boat was wiped out. That is a point I will argue against because it clearly is ridiculous. If you assert it was just a few hundred square miles, then the story loses its impact (and point) and I have no quarrel at all.

1poorguy

**Someone posted this analogy recently.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Because of the assumptions that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, nobody broke bones to look for soft tissue. Now that it was found by accident, a challenge has been made to look in more bones to see if soft tissue can be found in other bones.


This was not the first dino bone to have been broken.


Boy, talk about making assumptions. "The Bible says so, and therefore it's true."
------
This is not disturbing to those who put their faith in the Bible.



Well, we're talking about evidence, not faith.


Evolutionists make assumptions of their own, such as the one that the Earth was formed billions of years ago.


This is not an assumption. It's a conclusion based on many many different sources of evidence which all point towards a young earth.


The claim by AiG is that there was sufficient genetic variety after the flood to populate the Earth as it exists today.


But genetic evidence does not point towards sets of 2 or 7 of each species, nor does it point towards a bottleneck of just a few humans existing a few thousand years ago. The mitochondrial Eve, for example, is dated to many tens of thousands of years ago, and there were many other humans living at the time.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
New species have been observed evolving both in the lab and in nature.
---------
I don't dispute that. Different species may evolve in nature, but species may evolve by mutations that do not add to genetic information. Additional genetic information required for new kinds of animals or plants has not been shown to have happened in nature or the lab.



The fact that you accept speciation means you accept common descent. Creationists use the word "kind" a lot, but they never define it.

Does "kind" mean species or genus or family or what? Please answer that question.

I believe Dawkins points out that all evolutionary branching happens at the species level. This includes eventual changes at higher levels, like order and class. You seem to be asking for one animal to give birth to something from a different family or order. This doesn't happen, nor is it claimed to happen. Birth of new species is quite sufficient.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
Boy, talk about making assumptions. "The Bible says so, and therefore it's true."

This is not disturbing to those who put their faith in the Bible. Evolutionists make assumptions of their own, such as the one that the Earth was formed billions of years ago.


Creationists say this all the time, because they only understand the creationist mindset and assume that everybody else must think that way too. When you are committed to a religion, you pretty much have no choice but to start with the belief that your religious text is true, regardless of what research may tell you.

Science works in the opposite way: you assume any you know MIGHT be untrue, and you actively work to find evidence that your theories might be false. A theory that stands up for a long time against efforts to disprove it for a long time is considered very solid, though even a solid theory may eventually be thrown out or revised given a preponderance of contradictory evidence.

The idea that the earth is on the order of thousands rather than billions of years old is essentially long dead. Many creationists still want to hang on to that one, but when the heavy hitters like Dembski, Behe, and Wells appear in front of a general audience (i.e., non-fundamentalists) they are careful to say, at most, that the age of the earth is "an open question."

It's not even an open question. It's confirmed and reconfirmed by many different methods, lots of which have nothing to do with evolution. Arguing for a young earth is a dead end if you expect to be taken even a little bit seriously. If you want some basics, go here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Even if you want to remain a committed creationist, for God's (or the deity of your choice's) sake, step outside of AIG and read some other literature. Read Behe or something. Or better yet, pick up a scientific journal and read something that's required to accept scrutiny.

This may sound like I'm trying to "intimidate" you, but I'm really giving you this advice for your own good. Taking a tour through Ken Ham's Disney World resort may get you fired up and excited about your religion, but the only thing that's going to make you understand science is if you crack some books and start reading about the actual state of science.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
FMNH

"I believe Dawkins points out that all evolutionary branching happens at the species level. This includes eventual changes at higher levels, like order and class. You seem to be asking for one animal to give birth to something from a different family or order. This doesn't happen, nor is it claimed to happen. Birth of new species is quite sufficient. "

Of course it does not happen ( birth from independent genus). This is why as a Christian, I've never understood where the debate is. To engage in such things is folly.

MS
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
bdhinton :And no temporary dwellings from 40 years wandering? Come on, just what do you expect to be left to find from stick tents with animal skins?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You said it could be demonstrated that the events of Exodus didn't happen. All you said to support that view is say archeologists haven't found anything. Do you know how many things in the OT have been pointed to in the past 200 years, with skeptics saying "No evidence of x has every been found, so the bible is in error", only to have archeologists find the evidence later? This is kind of like a "god of the gaps" argument in reverse.



I think that's a little bit simplistic. Not only is there no evidence of a huge population wondering the sinai for more than a generation, there is evidence of chains of Egyptian fortifications to guard the eastern border, and an Egyptian expansionist policy into Canaan during the same period. And so there are documents of nomads and caravans being allowed to pass in and out of Egypt.
Archaeology can find stone-age camps of hunter-gatherers consisting of tens of people that stayed maybe half a year in one place. The bible names regions where the Israelites stayed for extended times, and these places have been turned upside down without finding anything.
Of the battles and sieges that occurred in Canaan there is no trace either. Worse, archaeology shows that some of the cities that were besieged and conquered did not even have a defense wall and could at best be villages at the time, certainly not large fortified cities.
Therefore I believe that this is not simply a case of absence of evidence. There is quite a bit of evidence that is contradictory to exodus happening.



bdhinton : Are you familiar with the works of K. A. Kitchen? According to my bible, Wikipedia: Kitchen is one of the leading experts on Biblical History and the Egyptian Third Intermediate Period having written over 250 books and journal articles on these and other subjects since the mid-1950s. His book, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 BC), is universally regarded by historians as the standard and most comprehensive treatment on this era.

In his book On the Reliability of the OT (2003), Kitchen explains why you wouldn't expect to find any Egyptian records of such events, nor would you expect to find any remains of the Hebrews in the area of Egypt where they would have most likely lived.



The Third intermediate period comes after the invasion of the sea-peoples, so that 's after the alleged exodus, but what's interesting is that according to the Bible, the Philistines, one of these sea-peoples lived in Canaan already since the time of Abraham. Another "historic fact" of the bible disproven by archaeology.

Do you know Israel Finkelstein ? Professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv, specialist of iron and bronze-age and director of the excavations at Megiddo. He has an (IMO) interesting and rational view of the origins of Israel, based on both biblical writings and archaeology, written down in the book "The Bible Unearthed" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed.
A TV documentary was made about this book which I 've watched. The book itself is still on my reading-wish-list.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

All of it. It never happened. There is no record of the plagues of Egypt, no record of a slave revolt, no record of the freeing of the slaves by the Pharaoh, and no evidence of hundreds of thousands of people wandering the desert for 40 years (no garbage heaps -a favorite among archeologists-, no fire pits, no temporary dwellings, nothing). The Egyptians were fanatical record keepers. There is no record of any of these events. And you can't have that many people wandering the desert for 40 years without leaving a trace.



The Exodus may have happened, but on a far smaller scale...
It was possibly just 20 large families, a few hundred people, that left Egypt.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Care to summarize in the interim??


Thanks for the response. Yes, I'll try to get to it later today. I've posted on this before, but (as usual) can't find it

Bryan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Paul: I found the dino tissue link. It's even a Christian link. :-)

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/dinosaur_blood_revisited.shtml

AiG loves to trumpet that one to the heavens, but it simply isn't that significant (at least not for their agenda). From a science standpoint it is VERY cool, but does nothing to advance YEC.

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Of course it does not happen ( birth from independent genus).


It passes through the speciation stage first.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Kitchen explains why you wouldn't expect to find any Egyptian records of such events, nor would you expect to find any remains of the Hebrews in the area of Egypt where they would have most likely lived.
---------
Care to summarize in the interim??


Kitchen asks the question, "To what extent (if at all) do our external sources endorse the factuality of an Egyptian setting and starting point, rather than "Egypt" being used as a novelistic setting, where no Hebrew had been?"

He then goes into the reasons why finding archeological evidence of the Hebrews in Egypt is not likely:

1. The setting of Ex. 1-14 is Egypt's East Delta, which is an alluvial fan of mud deposited over thousands of years by the annual flooding of the Nile.

2. Mud huts did not last long in that environment, and generally turned into mud. Even stone structures (made entirely of stone imported into the area) rarely survived, due to reuse of the materials for later dynasties.

3. Practically no written records of any extent have been found in Delta sites, 99 percent of discarded papyri having been destroyed in the mud. A few from Memphis, but "Otherwise, the entirety of Egypt's administrative records at all periods in the Delta is lost".

4. Pharoahs never monumentalize defeats on temple walls, so no record of the success of a bunch of slaves would have been memorialized by any king.

He concludes this section by saying "biblicists must shed their naive attitudes and cease demanding "evidence" that cannot exist".

The rest of the chapter deals with what evidence can be mustered to support the historicity of the narrative. Maybe I'll go into that later.

Bryan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
1poorguy,

Thanks for the link. I read the article. Up to now, scientific theory has been that organic mater becomes focillized within 100,000 years. This find, which appears to have actual organic tissue still intact, was a big surprise. See the link:

http://www.ncsu.edu/news/press_releases/05_03/075.htm

It looks like more study of the new find is needed to verify what early testing indicates, that this is actual organic material with cells and possibly DNA.

It may be premature to debate the topic until there is more evidence. It is no surprise that AiG has jumped all over this because it does appear to contradict presently held views of fossilization. It is indeed exciting in any case.

Personally, I think it is a stretch to think that organic material could have survived millions of years. We will see what further research shows.

There are differences of opinions even among christians, yes that is true.

JMHO
Paul
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Kazim,

This may sound like I'm trying to "intimidate" you, but I'm really giving you this advice for your own good. Taking a tour through Ken Ham's Disney World resort may get you fired up and excited about your religion, but the only thing that's going to make you understand science is if you crack some books and start reading about the actual state of science.

Thank you for the well written post. The link you gave is also very interesting.

There is an awful lot of information on this subject and it will take a lot of thought and time to read and digest enough to have a little knowledge of it. The technical part of it is very complex, but I am a technical type of person.

I don't know the discussions that there have been on this board in the past and may bring up a topic that has been beaten to death here or completely trounced. There may not be much patience for a topic that I have, or may bring up.

I have been fired up about my religion for some time. The Creation Museum was just a very interesting and enjoyable experience for me. Someone mentioned about pictures seen of the museum, but I'm not sure that they do justice to seeing the museum in person. I do have a bias based on what I have believed the Bible says. I have heard sermons that present different views on creation and giave critical thought to them. I am aware that the mainstream believe in an older Earth and evolution and have strong arguments to back that up. Even still, I think that the Bible was inspired to be written exactly as it was.

JMHO

Paul
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Paul

As a Christian it may interest you that the Creation as written in the Bible was actually documented 3000 or so years before Moses and Mosaic Law. This documentation is in the worship of ShangDi. Includes sacrifice of the Lamb, Creator of all things etc.. Chinese Characters pre-date cuniform as discovered in the caves in China. The chinese characters themselves are comprised of symbols of the Creation as detailed in the Bible. It is easy to find links on the web on this. A reference book could also be God's promise to the Chinese. Also books on the origins of Chinese script. And while the Bible is Gods Word, which as a Christian like you I accept, it not the first place He had man write His Word down.

As for science, it is good to study science, recognizing it as a system based on the law of nature. and man which practices the law of nature is bound to his sences and reason. Where as the man born of the spirit incorporates the law of nature along with his spirit, and is not bound by the law of nature.

MS
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I am aware that the mainstream believe in an older Earth and evolution and have strong arguments to back that up. Even still, I think that the Bible was inspired to be written exactly as it was.


Well, I think the point is that science deals with data versus religion based on belief and preference.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I think that's a little bit simplistic.

As is your response. These matters are actually very complicated . . .it doesn't surprize me that the facts are disputed.

Not only is there no evidence of a huge population wondering the sinai for more than a generation,

The number of Hebrews leaving Egypt is one of the disputed items. Its a translation problem, how to understand the Hebrew term. Some calculations have them down to around 20,000.

Kitchen acknowledges that no direct evidence of such a group wandering the Sinai has been found, but dismisses such findings as unlikely anyway. He surmizes they carried their water in skins, for example, so there would be no pots or pieces left to find.

there is evidence of chains of Egyptian fortifications to guard the eastern border, and an Egyptian expansionist policy into Canaan during the same period. And so there are documents of nomads and caravans being allowed to pass in and out of Egypt.

Yes, the forts were guarding the northern approach into Canaan. That's why God told them not to go that route (apparently). I'm not aware of any Egyptian forts in the vicintiy of the route Kitchen proposes (south towards Sinai) . . . if you have information that Kitchen does not, I'd like to see it, and I'm sure he'd be glad to receive it from you.


Archaeology can find stone-age camps of hunter-gatherers consisting of tens of people that stayed maybe half a year in one place. The bible names regions where the Israelites stayed for extended times, and these places have been turned upside down without finding anything.

They obviously have not looked in the right place :-) How do you know they have dug in every possible place?

Of the battles and sieges that occurred in Canaan there is no trace either. Worse, archaeology shows that some of the cities that were besieged and conquered did not even have a defense wall and could at best be villages at the time, certainly not large fortified cities.


Please give specifics, so I can give specific answers. But this is another area that is disputed.

according to the Bible, the Philistines, one of these sea-peoples lived in Canaan already since the time of Abraham. Another "historic fact" of the bible disproven by archaeology.


Where in the Bible? And what do you base your history of the Philistines on?

Therefore I believe that this is not simply a case of absence of evidence. There is quite a bit of evidence that is contradictory to exodus happening.

And there is additionally quite a bit of evidence that it did. Kitchen has a whole chapter on such externally verifiable evidence.

Bryan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
according to the Bible, the Philistines, one of these sea-peoples lived in Canaan already since the time of Abraham. Another "historic fact" of the bible disproven by archaeology.


Ok, I found what you were referring to, Gen. 21:32-34. Archaeology has in no way "disproven" this text. At the most it has failed to confirm such an early date for Philistines in the area. Not the same thing.

Victor Hamilton, in his commentary on Genesis, has this to say:

Many commentators have viewed the designation Philistine (vv. 32, 34) as an anachronism, because external sources (i.e., Egyptian texts) attest the presence of Philistines as Philistines in Palestine only as early as 1200 B.C. But such a conclusion is unwarranted. The later Philistines, mentioned in Judges and Samuel, are bellicose and live under “lords.” The Philistines of the patriarchal age are peaceful and live under a “king.” If this is an anachronistic retrojection it would be most unlikely that the character of those pictured in the retrojection would clash with the later Philistines. One would expect imitation and correspondence. I suggest that the Philistines of Genesis represent the first wave of Sea Peoples from the Aegean, and that the later Philistines represent the last wave (ca. 1200 B.C.). These early Philistines would then represent some earlier Aegean group, such as the Caphtorim from Crete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
They obviously have not looked in the right place :-) How do you know they have dug in every possible place?

What does this remind you of ?

g2w
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
hhasia

It is easy to find links on the web on this.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/china.asp

Yes it is. Thanks.

JMHO

Paul
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
They obviously have not looked in the right place :-) How do you know they have dug in every possible place?
------
What does this remind you of ?


You, trying to find where you left your keys???

:-)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You, trying to find where you left your keys???

:-)


You know what ? I had a nightmare the other night and woke up with my heart pounding because ---

I could not find my keys.

It's my glasses with which I have the most trouble. Those damn rimless specs that look so good on my face, seem to disappear when I take them off and I forget where the hell I left them.

g2w
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
They obviously have not looked in the right place :-) How do you know they have dug in every possible place?
----
What does this remind you of ?



God of the Gaps™ version 99857.4?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
The number of Hebrews leaving Egypt is one of the disputed items. Its a translation problem, how to understand the Hebrew term. Some calculations have them down to around 20,000.

Yeah that should go unnoticed.


Kitchen acknowledges that no direct evidence of such a group wandering the Sinai has been found, but dismisses such findings as unlikely anyway. He surmizes they carried their water in skins, for example, so there would be no pots or pieces left to find.

Well stone-age hunter gatherers were only a few hundred at best and they didn't have pottery either, yet we can find their camps.
During their wanderings this group of exodus-nomads was doing battle with all kinds of local peoples. Were they fighting with branches and unworked stones ? Or maybe they just threw sand at the enemy. No wonder they lost.

When they finally reach the promised land for the second time they seem to be fully equipped though.


Yes, the forts were guarding the northern approach into Canaan. That's why God told them not to go that route (apparently). I'm not aware of any Egyptian forts in the vicintiy of the route Kitchen proposes (south towards Sinai) . . . if you have information that Kitchen does not, I'd like to see it, and I'm sure he'd be glad to receive it from you.

Okay so let's trust the geographical information given in the bible.


They obviously have not looked in the right place :-) How do you know they have dug in every possible place?

I found this on a spiritual website, so I trust the bible reference is correct :

According to the biblical narrative, the children of Israel camped at Kadesh-barnea for 38 of the 40 years of the wanderings. The general location of this place is clear from the description of the southern border of the land of Israel in Numbers 34. It has been identified by archaeologists with the large and well-watered oasis of Ein el-Quedeirat in eastern Sinai, on the border of modern Israel and Egypt. The name Kadesh was probably preserved over the centuries in the name of a nearby smaller spring called Ein Qadis. A small mound with the remains of a Late Iron Age fort stands at the center of this oasis. Yet repeated excavations and surveys throughout the entire area have not provided the slightest evidence for activity in the Late Bronze Age, not even a single sherd left by a tiny fleeing band of frightened refugees.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/90/story_9034_2.html


You also have to remember that today's archaologists use sattelite imaging, ground penetrating radar and gadgets like that to search for sites. They're not simply wandering around the desert taking a sample every 200 miles.


T : Therefore I believe that this is not simply a case of absence
of evidence. There is quite a bit of evidence that is contradictory
to exodus happening.


bdh : And there is additionally quite a bit of evidence that it did. Kitchen has a whole chapter on such externally verifiable evidence.

Alas, according to Popper you can show a hundred observations that confirm your theory, as long as you cannot explain the observations that refute it, your theory is in trouble.

BTW, did you notice you are relying on a lot on things like "there could have been old Philistines" (which neither the Egyptians nor the Hittites who were fighting over this area ever noticed) and "this could be a mistranslation" and "we haven't found the place yet". All arguments that you soundly reject when it comes to explaining the evolutionary formation of bacterial flagella. No working hypothesis counts there until shown to be the exact provable mechanism. Hmmmm.... difficult to argue with you.


T.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You know what ? I had a nightmare the other night and woke up with my heart pounding because ---

I could not find my keys.


LOL!

Glasses are my main problem too. My solution is to stash cheap reading glasses all over the house. Bound to find one of them.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
During their wanderings this group of exodus-nomads was doing battle with all kinds of local peoples. Were they fighting with branches and unworked stones ? Or maybe they just threw sand at the enemy. No wonder they lost.

When they finally reach the promised land for the second time they seem to be fully equipped though.


They left Egypt fully equipped. You expect they'd fling their weapons around the desert so you could find them today?

BTW, did you notice you are relying on a lot on things like "there could have been old Philistines" (which neither the Egyptians nor the Hittites who were fighting over this area ever noticed) and "this could be a mistranslation" and "we haven't found the place yet". All arguments that you soundly reject when it comes to explaining the evolutionary formation of bacterial flagella.

Since you accept such arguments to explain the flagella, to be consistent you should accept them for the bible.

I'm not consistent. I challenge the naturalistic history "story" for the flagella because it fits with my worldview to suspect that it was designed. And I'm prone to giving the bible some slack because I find the overall story impressive and true.

Why do you accept the naturalistic explanation for the flagella, and reject the historicity of the bible on the flimsiest grounds?

Hmmmm.... difficult to argue with you.


It would be easier if you admit your bias
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3

They left Egypt fully equipped. You expect they'd fling their weapons around the desert so you could find them today?

Oh my, so in the timespan of 40 years and after some battles they never had to refurbish or remake weapons ? Making stone weapons does leave very characteristic traces. For bronze metallurgy you need ovens, molds etc... These all leave traces as well. Isn't there this story about a golden calf also ? So that shows they practiced metallurgy. If they had ovens and molds suitable for that it seems unlikely they didn't have ceramics either.

It would be easier if you admit your bias

I admit I'm biased in the sense that I only believe those parts of religious or mythical stories that can be confirmed by archaeology or that are corroborated by other sources.
For the wanderings of Ulysses, all the major places that are mentioned in the epic have been located throughout the meditteranean. We have identified the places where Polyphemos lived, or Scylla and Charibdis or the Lotus Eaters.... Does that imply that these mythical beings existed ? Of course not. So it is with the Bible. Lots of places and names mentioned have been identified. Yet all the old stories (predating the split kingdom) paint a picture of the Levant around the 9th-7th centure BCE. I do believe that Senacherib made a kingdom called Israel a client state of Assyria and that the Babylonians sacked Jerusalem. Those stories are confirmed by Assyrian and Babylonian sources. The exodus on the other hand, as far as I can judge, has the same credibility as the Odyssee.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
First you say

I'm prone to giving the bible some slack because I find the overall story impressive and true.

then you say


It would be easier if you admit your bias


Impressive is a long way from true.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
BdHinton

I realize I'm late to your discourse. There are other sources for references. If you like this sort of discussion.

http://wyattmuseum.com/
Welcome to Wyatt Archaeological Research Inc

I suggest to review archives. In particular what is not coming out of saudia arabia for political reasons.


MS
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
bdhinton,

I recall seeing a very interesting History Channel show about the exodous. I think it was a digging for the truth episode that has been shown a couple of times in the past year. I don't remember a lot of the particulars, but it made an interesting alternate scenario that the timeframe of when it happened could have been different than when historians have thought it to be, and the pharo at that time, was located in a different place.

I think that it also told of things happening in the Mediterranian, at a volcanic Island which erupted at that time, that would have caused the plagues. There also was something that they found near the northern coast of the Mediterranean that has artwork and a relic which seems to have come from some of the Hebrew people who fled Egypt and eventually made their way there.

I thought that the program was very well done and showed some good evidence that what happened as told in the bible actually happened.

JMHO

Paul
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 47
What part of Exodus has been demonstrated to be wrong?

According to the book of Exodus, 600,000 adult male Hebrew warriors left Egypt (Exodus 12:37). A more precise number is given in Exodus 38:25-28 and Numbers 1:46 of 603,550. By the end of the 40 years in the desert, the number of adult male warriors was 601,730 (Numbers 26:51). These clearly are not transcription problems as the numbers are precise and while different, they are consistently reported around 600,000 throughout the various accounts. If the adult male warriors numbered around 600,000, it is reasonable to assume that there would have been a similar number of adult females, and a proportional amount of both children and old people. In total it seems that there would have been in excess of 1.5 million people leaving Egypt. This is 3 times the population of cities such as Seattle (563,000), Portland (529,000) or Denver (567,000) and way more than twice the current total population of Jerusalem (around 706,000 in 2005). Regardless of how many females and children there were, it is a huge number. In addition, according to the Biblical account, none of the people who left Egypt entered the Promised Land. Yet the number that crossed the Jordan was approximately the same as the number that left Egypt. This means that there were about 1.5 million births and 1.5 million deaths in 40 years (well over 100 births and deaths per day every day). So the first question is: What happened to all of these corpses? Forget the red herring about tents and animal skins. As the archeological finds of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi texts attest, this region is excellent for preserving even fragile papyrus texts. Where are either the biological or the technological remains of the 1.5 million Hebrews who died in the wilderness? Where is there any evidence of either their metal work or pottery that are found in every other culture from the same time period and that are specifically described in the Biblical texts (where did all the gold go that was used in the tabernacle)?

These numbers also present many practical difficulties. For example, the able-bodied warriors, marching 50 men abreast would have presented a line seven miles long. When we add women and children, the line would stretched about 22 miles so that the last of them could not have started until the first had traveled the full distance, which would have been about 2 days journey for a mixed company like this. Or if they traveled in a square, it would have been a tightly packed block of people over 1 square mile. How would instruction have been given to start, stop, change direction etc. And the sheep and “very much” cattle must have formed another vast column of similar proportion. What did this enormous herd of cattle and sheep feed upon? The animals could not live on the manna, nor could the people drink the manna. Num. 20:5 and Deut. 8:15 affirm that the rock which miraculously yielded water did not follow them through the desert. Where did 1.5 million plus nomads get drinking water throughout 40 years in a desert?

In numerous laws and references (see especially Exodus 35-40), the tabernacle was to be placed in the center of the camp of all the people. If we allow only 4 feet square for each person, the Hebrew encampment would have been more than 1 mile in each direction with the tabernacle in the center and all their animals outside of the camp. If we accept more realistic density rates, the size of the camp grows significantly. Mumbai (formerly known as Bombay) is one of the most densely populated cities on earth. It has about 29,000 people per square kilometer. Using these figures would mean that the size of the Hebrew camp would have been almost 5 miles across. Apart from the logistical nightmare of setting up, moving and resettling a community of this size on a regular basis this size of community present great difficulties even for such basic issues as personal hygiene. For example Deut 23:12-14 commands that every person go outside the camp for the “call of nature”. There were the aged, the sick, young children and women giving birth. It would have been clearly impossible for them to travel ½ mile every time they needed to relieve themselves, much less 2.5 miles for those near the center of the community.

But the issue really becomes bizarre when we consider how important animal sacrifices and religious rituals were to this community. Sacrifices for 1.5 million people were required to be performed by the priests (Lev 17:5) in the tabernacle (about 150*75 feet according to Exodus 35-40), which was located at the center of the community. The account of the exodus goes into elaborate detail concerning both the reason for and the type of sacrifices that were to be offered by every Hebrew person and/or family. A pigeon was to have been sacrificed as a sin offering for each newborn child (over 100 every day). In addition, there were burnt offerings, meat-offerings, peace offerings, sin-offerings, trespass offerings, thanks offerings and many more. How many priests were assigned to facilitate all of these sacrifices? According to Exodus 29:9, Exodus 40:15 and Num. 3:10. only Aaron, his sons and their descendants were to be priests, and the text only mentions two son sons - Eleazer and Ithamar. Aaron’s grandsons are never mentioned either by name or by inference, but even if Aaron’s sons had large families immediately after leaving Egypt, they still would not have been able to become priests until they became adults. So that mean that for at least some significant period there were only three priest for 1.5 million people who were commanded to all regularly make a wide variety of sacrifices exclusively by a priest and exclusively at this tiny (relatively speaking) tabernacle. On top of this, the animals lived outside the camp, so every sacrificial offering had to be lead alive for at least 2.5 miles through the camp to the tabernacle, slaughtered there and offered as a sacrifice to God, and then the remains taken back outside the camp and burned on “wood with fire.” (Lev 4:11-12 and 6:10-11). Apart from the vivid visual image of a steady stream of live animals being transported one way for sacrifice and the remains of the sacrifice being carried back outside the camp for disposal, where in the desert did the wood fuel for the fires come from? And by the way, where, when they were living on manna in a desert with no alternate source of food, did they get the grain for their grain offerings – as required by Exodus (29:41, 30:9, 40:29), Leviticus (35 references), Numbers (57 references) and Deut (1 reference)?

Furthermore, how could Moses have “called all Israel and spoke to them” (Deut 5:1) or how could Joshua have “read the words of the Law before all the congregation of Israel, with the women, and the little ones, and the strangers that were conversant among them.” (Josh. 8:34-35). This problem is then compounded by the assertion in Deut 7 where the Israelites were commanded to destroy 7 nations “greater and mightier” than them. Multiplying the number of Hebrew armed men by 7 gives us 4.2 million armed men in Canaan. When we add women, children, the elderly and the infirm, we reach a number well over 9 million. This is about the size of the population of New York City, and 1.5 times the entire population of the current nation of Israel https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html. There is NO archeological evidence that a population even close to this size ever existed in that geographical area. Even with modern scientific farming techniques, desalination plants, food importing, apartments buildings and constant immigration Israel has only attained a population of about 6 million.

To cap this all off, according to I Kings 20:15, many years later the total population of all of Israel, including men, women and children, was 7,000. To see a society drop from over 1,500,000 to 7,000 would be a catastrophe of epic proportions. Yet there is no record of such a disaster in either the Bible or non-canonical sources.

On the basis of the biblical evidence alone the number of Hebrew warriors that left Egypt and/or crossed the Jordan 40 years later being 600,000 is totally unbelievable and demonstrably false. The demonstrable difficulties of accepting the exodus account as factual have been well documented for at least the last 150 years (as only one of many examples see “The Pentateuch and Joshua Critically Examined” written in 1862 by J. W. Colenso, an Anglican missionary and Bible translator for the Zulu people). Yet many evangelical scholars continue to insist that the story of exodus is accurately reported. The most charitable thing I can say about them is that they are so blinded by their preexisting assumptions about God and the Biblical text that they cannot read what the text actually says.

Thanks


Paul T
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That's nitpicking, isn't it?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Paul,

A wonderfully detailed work! It's almost publishable! Your familiarity with the Biblical verses really drives this one home. Thanks for taking the time to expand on this subject. I will be using it in the future when this topic comes up (which occasionally it does). You have even more decisively than my earlier post completely shattered the myth of the Exodus.

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Bryon

While Dr. Kitchen indeed is an evangelical scholar and has written much on the topic, most Biblical scholars acknowledge that while he may be a great scholar when dealing with cultures he has no ideological issue with, he stands to the extreme far edge of the academic community when dealing with ancient Hebrew texts/history and very few academics accept his claims in this area.

Here is a review of On the Reliability of the OT by Charles David Isbell, Director of Jewish Studies at Louisiana State University. http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Isbell-Kitchen_and_Minimalism.htm
He is far more charitable towards Dr. Kitchens work then I am, but when it comes to Kitchen’s work on the Exodus even his advocate Dr. Isabell states:

Here the ideology of Kitchen once again betrays him. In his view, the acknowledgement of more than one "source" for the Pentateuch would be a mortal sin. And this leads him to the most bizarre explanation of Exodus 6.3 yet. What appears in the text as a simple declarative statement in a series of similar statements, Kitchen proposes to have read as "a rhetorical negative that implies a positive" (p. 329). Of course, if translators wished to employ this principle at their pleasure, countless texts in the Bible could become the opposite of what they seem to mean. Only his prior commitment to oppose a hypothesis of "documents" pushes Kitchen to this explanation here in Exodus 6.3. Forget doublets throughout the Torah, which surely stand as warrants of authenticity from editors who were not afraid to transmit more than one perspective on the same incident. Forget differences in theological perspective. For Kitchen, even the plainest text of all must be altered, however necessary, to fit into an ideological scheme.

In my opinion Dr. Kitchen is one of the most dangerous of all Biblical scholars. He is smart, he has built a great reputation on his work with Egyptian cultures but when it comes to the ancient Hebrew scriptures he starts with what he “knows” to be true (the inerrancy of scripture) and then forces the evidence to fit his conclusions. Apart from the integrity issues involved, this practice leads to bad theology and bad analysis, which then tends to negate whatever legitimate insight he might have. By insisting on inerrant factuality he along with other inerrantists are forced to invent rationalizations that they would never accept in other sources and frequently ending up making words mean the exact opposite of what they normally mean. (We can discuss the story of Judas if you want, or when the crucifixion happened) Calling black white is not only counterproductive in terms of understanding the scriptures but causes many people to reject our message before they hear it. When presented with the false dichotomy of “The Bible is either literally and factually inerrant or it is false and unreliable” most people who have not been raised with this dogma will choose “false and unreliable”. It is no wonder that many of the most adamant atheists were once fundamentalists.

It seems incredibly arrogant to assume that the way we view the world is the only legitimate way to view the world and that the questions we think are important were also the ones that were important to the ancient Hebrews. In our age one of the primary religious questions is “Is there a God or is there no God.” All other theological questions come after this one. For the ancient world, both Hebrew and pagan, a divine realm. There was no dispute that God(s) was real or that God(s) had created the world. The question of that day was “What or whose God(s) is real, what is God like and what does that mean in how we live with each other.” Every ancient culture had their own answers to these questions as can be clearly seen when we compare the myths in the Pentateuch with other creation and cosmic myths of other cultures. The Babylonian and Hebrew accounts of creation have many similarities and many differences. If we accept their similarities as a common worldview (much like theists and non-theists today generally agree with each other that the scientific method is the best way to explore the natural world and both agree that the earth is not the center of the universe nor does the sun revolve around a stationary earth) and focus our attention on their differences we can see core theological differences between these communities. When we insist that these accounts must either be factually true or they are worthless, we reduce their powerful claims to mere mechanistic details and completely miss the point(s) the original author(s) was trying to make. It makes no more sense than if someone insisted that unless Robert Frost ever actually was walking in a yellow wood and physically came to a fork in the road and really took the one less traveled, his poetry is worthless and false.



Thanks


Paul
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
1poorguy

Thanks for the compliment but most of my information is condensed from the work I cited at the end of my post. I am a Christian who sees enormous value in the Biblical texts but doesn't understand the need to read them literally. What really makes me angry is that this information has been published for almost 150 years, but very few Christians even acknowledge that there are issues with the Exodus account.

Thanks


Paul
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"I admit I'm biased in the sense that I only believe those parts of religious or mythical stories that can be confirmed by archaeology or that are corroborated by other sources."

I gather this is the view of most posting, who call the Bible myth.

So I cannot resist, as a Christian to say, that it is from the Bible that we can scientifically calculate that the current orbit of the earth was not the original one. Plus a whole lot of information I'm not going to publish till science catches up. That the gaps from both sides leave me wondering how long the blind will continue to lead the blind.

MS
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So I cannot resist, as a Christian to say, that it is from the Bible that we can scientifically calculate that the current orbit of the earth was not the original one.

Can you explain this? Is this the urban legend about how NASA couldn't account for the "missing" 24 hours 20 minutes when calculating satellite orbits? The one where the lone Christian among the hard-headed scientists turned to his Old Testament and showed them the error of their ways?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So I cannot resist, as a Christian to say, that it is from the Bible that we can scientifically calculate that the current orbit of the earth was not the original one.

Oh, this should be fun. Enlighten us, please.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
I gather this is the view of most posting, who call the Bible myth.

I don't know that anyone has labeled the entire tome as "myth". However, I think it has been more than adequately demonstrated that the Exodus was myth. So was the Flood. Are other elements less mythical? Sure. Archeologists have found various settlements named in the Bible (such as Jericho, and Soddom and Gomorrah -though the latter were not known by those names, as I recall).

It's difficult (or impossible) to paint it with a broad brush. There are elements of fact in the book. There also are myths handed down through the generations, probably verbally for a very long time before someone actually wrote it down. But those that take the Bible literally, from cover to cover, have no leg to stand upon. Disproving even one thing disproves inerrancy, and that has already been accomplished. Those that take is more metaphorically don't encounter such inconvenient things as contradictory evidence, and so their faith is not in conflict with observable facts.

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
bdhinton says

I'd like to see Behe get fair treatment in the science journals. That's impossible when the only acceptable response to him is predetermined to be "Behe is a jerk".

Behe isn't the only guy who doesn't get "fair treatment" in the science journals. The journals are deluged with submissions that range from substandard to crackpot, and most of them go straight back to the senders with a polite rejection note. Nobody ever hears the names of these people. But because Behe has credentials, his utterly vacuous "theory" gets reviewed and discussed.

Face it, the man is a nuisance with a foolish argument. In the science journals, you get the respect you deserve.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
James

All I can say is, no, this has nothing to do with satellites. The assumption that this is from the OT is yours.
Enough said. Science has a long way to go.

you may want to read my earlier post on the topic.

MS
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Kaz

I can see the smile on your face.

MS
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I gather this is the view of most posting, who call the Bible myth.

I don't know that anyone has labeled the entire tome as "myth". However, I think it has been more than adequately demonstrated that the Exodus was myth. So was the Flood. Are other elements less mythical? Sure. Archeologists have found various settlements named in the Bible (such as Jericho, and Soddom and Gomorrah -though the latter were not known by those names, as I recall).

He was quoting me, and I am one who has labeled the Bible as Myth in the same way that the Odysee, the 12 works of Hercules, the Argonauts, the Aeneid, the Edda and the Lebor Gaballa Erenn are myth. All of these stories describe places that existed and fragments of history between allegory and religion. What is it that makes the Bible different from these other myths ?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
So I cannot resist, as a Christian to say, that it is from the Bible that we can scientifically calculate that the current orbit of the earth was not the original one. Plus a whole lot of information I'm not going to publish till science catches up. That the gaps from both sides leave me wondering how long the blind will continue to lead the blind.

It seems to me you are a gnostic, one who knows the secret messages of the Bible but will not communicate them to the un-initiated.
Some claim that the gnostics died out after the Albigensian crusade in the 13th century, but I think gnosticism is one of these eternal movements that arise like a phoenix out of its ashes.
The old gnostics were IMO the most logical of Christians. The snake, giving Adam and Eve the knowledge of good and bad, was the good girl. Yahweh on the other hand was the bad guy. A frustrated, violent spirit who, erroneously, thought he was God. Jesus was sent to correct those false notions about God.
Not that I believe this, but from a first century point of view it seems like a much more logical picture than the that of the trinity or of rainbows as a sign that God is tempted to destroy the world once more.
I don't suppose your secret knowledge has anything to do with that though.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Tarasicodissa

That is a good question. Why I do not believe the Bible is myth. First, man is body, mind and spirit. Man under the law of nature operates under those principles body and mind alone and the spirit is sleeping. Man born of the Spirit is led by the spirit, and appears foolish to the man under the natural law. The spirit surpasses the mind. For the man of nature the boundary, is his mind. For man to attempt to cross that boundary under his own will is what Buddism is all about. For a Christian, the ability is given.

In that context, the Bible can be taken two ways. under the natural law alone or by the Holy Spirit leading the spirit of man.

In a literal since the message of the Bible was written in the heavens, long before Moses. And even before Moses we have the first documentation in China of the same. The ancients were master astronomers, and they knew the message. The corruption of the message and fanciful notions and myths are plain and you are right to call them such.

I know the message of the Bible is true because it is documented in the heavens. What is amazing is how it is actually committed to writing. The gift of writing alone was a combination of the witness of heavens, history and teachings. Plus as a Christian I have a relationship with Jesus. Both the witness of nature and the personal relationship.

For these reasons I have no problem with the state of the two camps. But both are missing each other and will not budge because of pride. In truth the interpretations from both sides are full of gaps and holes. Both are blinded by ambition to out do the other, under the notion of who is "right". The creationists do not look at the evidence staring them in the face of the heavens, nor I suspect that they ask Him, or they choose not to listen to Him. The evolutionists want the gaps not to be there and will keep searching science.

What did Einstein say? he believed "God reveals Himself in the harmony of all that exists" When asked about Jesus? "Unquestionably. No one can read the Gosples without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

He also said " science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind"

I agree. and after all these years not much has changed.

MS
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
First, I'm afraid any argument that goes "I can prove this, but I'm not going to tell you" doesn't fly very far. You may have a wonderful argument. But without seeing it I cannot know this, and therefore will discount it out of hand. Whenever you see fit to disclose I'm sure T and I and others here will be happy to scrutinize it.

First, man is body, mind and spirit.

That is an assertion without basis (except the first item). Define "mind". If you mean a brain, then yes. As for spirit, that's really gotta be defined, and I think it likely whatever definition you state you will find those that don't accept it without some form of evidence.

I know the message of the Bible is true because it is documented in the heavens.

Interesting, but cryptic. Care to elaborate? Is this the evidence you spoke of earlier as part of the argument you would not provide?

Both are blinded by ambition to out do the other, under the notion of who is "right".

Speaking only for the science side, that isn't correct. Science and scientists have no interest whatsoever in out-doing creationists. Quite honestly, they mostly just ignore them. We don't care about their rantings. Also, "pride" isn't a factor either. It's just a thirst to know and understand. If science found proof that Exodus was correct, do you think they would hide it out of spite? Hardly. It would be verified and published. That's just how science is.

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"It seems to me you are a gnostic, one who knows the secret messages of the Bible but will not communicate them to the un-initiated."

No, that is not my position at all. This idea of some secret message is what led to the secret exclusive socities. I abhore that sort of thing.

No, the Bible clearly states that if a man wants wisdom all he needs to do is ask. It is wisdom through the Holy Spirit that gives a man the capacity to interpret. It is a gift for all those who choose to receive it. Nothing exclusive to it.

This is why I say the creationists don't ask. or if they do they do not listen. They lean on their own understanding. The first 3 chapters of Proverbs. a sample;

Prov 1:5-6 let the wise listen and add to their learning, and let the discerning get guidance- for understanding proverbs and parables, the sayings and riddles of the wise.

Prov 3:5-6 Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him and he will make your path straight.


I do not know which is easier: to ask a man of science to admit his weakness and that wisdom through the Lord can make the path clear and strong, or to ask the man of faith to take off the blinders long enough to ask for wisdom and listen.

MS
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What is it that makes the Bible different from these other myths ?

Taken in that context, nothing at all. Perhaps I was splitting hairs between myth with verifiable facts as a basis, and myth which has been disproven.

For example, there are myths surround our founding fathers (e.g. George Washington and the cherry tree), but they were not mythical and many of the stories about them are correct (at least in part because divine intervention was not invoked to explain the crossing of the Delaware ;-) . If someday a religion forms around them, some of the stories will likely be true (or based on truth) while others probably will be mythical. Maybe I am splitting hairs a little too finely here.

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
First, man is body, mind and spirit.


You'll need to provide evidence for the spirit part.



I know the message of the Bible is true because it is documented in the heavens.



Link, please.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
1poorguy

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

As for the thesis which I stated earlier was written by my father based on wisdom revealed by the Holy Spirit within the Book of Revelation. From this information he expanded the works of Eistein and for 20 years crunched the numbers. However, the technology as we have it today is behind. It is a very technical piece of work, and frankly before he died I had him go over it one more time, I still feel like a lackey. I do await the day when technology will be able to physically demonstrate what is already complete mathamatically. because scientists like the evidence, we are not to that point. But having said that, I could not resist to say that the earths orbit was not where it is today. Its important for both sides of the evolution/creation argument to know that. For it changes the perspectives and time lines people have taken for granted, not to mention climate. I thank you for being open to review such a work, please understand why I wait.


By mind I do mean brain, reason, man's capacity to reason.

"As for spirit, that's really gotta be defined, and I think it likely whatever definition you state you will find those that don't accept it without some form of evidence."

Evidence of the Spirit comes by revelation alone.

Without revelation the natural mind through reason cannot cross the barrier. He does not percieve the barrier at all. I understand this, and usually divide my exposee according to the frame of reference of the person, either man under natural law, or man led by the spirit. This is to be fair, as I do not ask the man under natural law to grasp something which comes by revelation. This is where I think most Christians miss the boat.

The documentation of the heavens. This is not part of the first subject the creation of the solar system.

The documentation of heavens deals with the constilations and the original names of the stars and the message of Bible as written there.
Job deals with this in part of the book. The exact time of Jesus birth is given in the Book of Revelations as a star picture.

http://www.cortright.org/birth.htm
The Birth of Jesus Christ

That is only a small sample, it is a deep subject with lots of teaching. I can give another web site if you like, with references of ancient hebrew names, acadia, greek etc for the various pictures. As well as the corruption of these things.

As for evidence on Exodus there is more than is disclosed, for the resting place is in Saudia Arabia, but if for one minute they implied that the Jews met God in that land, they fear the Jews would lay claim to it. Our limited western access to that land is part of why there is little documented evidence.

I'm no expert on Exodus, the website is an archaeological one, that hunts for this sort of thing. Like you, they believe that if it is true there will be evidence. The archives and articles are worth considering.

http://wyattmuseum.com/
Welcome to Wyatt Archaeological Research Inc


Now I'm just a lay person, and I appreciate science, and Love Jesus.

Thanks for your patience.

MS
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Let's just start with one point for now. Spirit. Are you referring to the Holy Spirit (Trinity or not), or the "soul"? Even defining to that level would help the conversation and put things into better context. Feel free to elaborate further, or choose a third option I did not list.

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
According to the book of Exodus, 600,000 adult male Hebrew warriors left Egypt (Exodus 12:37). A more precise number is given in Exodus 38:25-28 and Numbers 1:46 of 603,550. By the end of the 40 years in the desert, the number of adult male warriors was 601,730 (Numbers 26:51). These clearly are not transcription problems as the numbers are precise and while different, they are consistently reported around 600,000 throughout the various accounts.

Right, it's not a transcription problem, but rather an interpretive one. The Hebrew term for "thousand" can also mean something like "leader", which would solve some problems you raise, but create others. You're a seminary student, you have access to all the source materials, so I won't bore you with alternative solutions you no doubt have already considered.

Yet many evangelical scholars continue to insist that the story of exodus is accurately reported.

If the kinds of "problems" you raise are representative of the kinds of arguments liberal scholars are making, then I have just as much difficulty agreeing with the one as the other.

The most charitable thing I can say about them is that they are so blinded by their preexisting assumptions about God and the Biblical text that they cannot read what the text actually says.

Yes, a pity they can't all be as clear-eyed and unbiased as VST students seem to be.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What is it that makes the Bible different from these other myths ?
-----
Taken in that context, nothing at all. Perhaps I was splitting hairs between myth with verifiable facts as a basis, and myth which has been disproven.


IMO, a key difference is that there's folkers who believe the bible is Literal, don't-you-dare-criticize-it, word of god who're running a large nation with mass quantities of nuclear weapons
(OS .. a similar group of folkers who believe even more fervently in the Qu'ran who are in control of much of the world's precious bodily Oil;
... and if Putin were a good little Russian Orthodox ... )


For example, there are myths surround our founding fathers (e.g. George Washington and the cherry tree), but they were not mythical and many of the stories about them are correct (at least in part because divine intervention was not invoked to explain the crossing of the Delaware ;-) . If someday a religion forms around them, some of the stories will likely be true (or based on truth) while others probably will be mythical. Maybe I am splitting hairs a little too finely here.

maybe ..maybe not.
myth often has a grain of fact in it .. some like to focus on the grain; some like to ignore it.


=
..... fan of Myth
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
1poorguy

there is the Holy Spirit, and there is the spirit of man.

A very simple illustration of the spirit of man is why Harry Potter is the best selling book for eons.

The story appeals to that part of our nature, the spirit, which would love to be super human and do all kinds of tricks. And while we recognize it rationally as fantasy, people like it because it touches something deeper.

I personally do not care for it as a story but thats just taste. The Holy Spirit already gives His gifts.



MS
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
A very simple illustrat