Another “living fossil” discovery pokes holes in the secular Macro Evolutionary theory.
AP | Ali Sultan | July 16, 2007
ZANZIBAR, Tanzania – Fishermen have caught a rare and endangered fish, the coelacanth, off the coast of the Indian Ocean archipelago of Zanzibar, a researcher said on Monday.
The find makes Zanzibar the third place in Tanzania where fishermen have caught the coelacanth, a heavy-bodied, many-finned fish with a three-lobed tail that was thought extinct until it was caught in 1938 off the coast of South Africa. Since then two types of coelacanth have been caught in five other countries: Comoros, Indonesia, Kenya, Madagascar and Mozambique, according to African Coelacanth Ecosystem Program.
“Fishermen informed us that they caught a strange fish in their nets. We rushed to Nungwi (the northern reaches of Zanzibar) to find it’s a coelacanth, a rare fish thought to have become extinct when it disappeared from fossil records 80 million years ago,” said Nariman Jiddawi of the Institute of Marine Sciences, which is part of the University of Dar es Salaam in Tanzania’s commercial capital.
. . . more
So, let’s assume that it does not make sense to speculate whether a “day” of creation is 24 hours or 24 million years. I agree. Now, if a geologist measures the decay of radioactive material in some rocks, and finds that they were formed, say, 3 billion years ago, would you not accept this, and base your position on ideas about the Bible, the Fall, etc?
Again, this is projecting the categories and conditions of post fall into pre fall. What does “decay”, entropy, have to do with Paradise? I realize that “decay” in this context is slightly different, but I think you can see the point.
Fr. Seraphim points out how Thomas Aquinas could not quite make out what Adam did with his, how do I put it, “organs of defecation” in Paradise, since he ate of pure food and there was nothing to defecate (this based on the “science” of Aristotle and his followers). So Aquinas projected back, and said while Adam did in fact possess the organs of defecation in paradise, God by a miracle did not allow anything to be defecated. Fr. Seraphim rightly says (using Eastern Saints) that this is an unnecessary speculation/projection, in that it could just as easily be something else, but the speculation is based on post fall “conditions”, so you know it is suspect.
All this is really another way of saying that yes, miracles, do in fact happen, and the ways of God can and do transcend “material” limitations…
Note 99, Jim Holman, what constitutes “evidence”
Here is it clear that in order for a rational discussion to ensue, we need to define “evidence.” The fact remains that an atheist, before any discussion even begins, pre-emptorily dismisses anything a theist will propose as evidence of the truth of Christianity. So, it isn’t a matter of whether there is evidence to support a conclusion (notice the choice of the term ‘conclusion’ rather than ‘belief’). It is a matter of what the atheist is willing to accept as evidence AND as we all know atheists reject anything Christianity accepts as evidence.
For rigorous evidence on why we can trust the Gospels I refer you to the works of Mark Roberts. Read him and come back to discuss the contents. He addresses the core issues of the sources of the Gospels and the conclusions that can be drawn from the actual extant manuscripts. Real evidence Jim.
Once again, Jim, I don’t know why you spend time here repeatedly challenging the conclusions drawn by Christians, you simply do not accept what we accept to be evidence and you never will.
I can tell you that your monomaniacal repetition of the same arguments over and over and over again, aren’t going to change my mind. They won’t change my mind because you don’t supply anything new. Remember I used to think as you do, I don’t anymore, thank goodness. You aren’t “enlightening” some person whom you hold in contempt as underuneducated and underexposed to modern ideas. I have 11 years of higher education and an extensive law practice under my belt.
Lastly, I am not responsible for the thoughts of every human being on the planet that refers to himself or herself as religious or as Christian. Nearly everyone has a slightly different take on religion. I am only responsible for my religious views. Just because I am a Christian doesn’t mean I have to find a rationale for every person who ever cooked up their own religious ideas. This is America and we all have the intellectual freedom to decide for ourselves. There are millions of atheists out there, many of whom hold some very spurious ideas and I don’t hold Jim Holman responsible for defending those ideas.
Michael writes: Actually, if anyone wants to learn about the faith rather than contend about its application (he doesn’t allow contention by the way), his is a good one.
I would like to remark on this point of “contention.”
I have a rule for myself I adopted from a St Vladimir graduate, Ephrem Bensusan, who has hosted dialogues for Orthodox/Lutherans, Orthodox/Reformed, and other inquirers. It goes like this:
Herein is an Environment close to paradise 🙂
For people looking to blossom.
And when religious belief contradicts known facts, that’s when it runs off the rails.
Hi Jim — Do you have anything particular in mind? Or, thinking theoretically. God forbid I put words in your mouth
Christopher writes:
Think back to what Fr. Jacobse said about Time.
Hi Christopher — Would you repeat it for me, please or direct me to the post #? Thanks, I appreciate it.
Nancy, Post #67 is Fr. Hans on time.
I have read Alexander Kalomires’s writings on creation/evolution and I don’t agree with them. I also don’t agree with what I read from Fr. Rose.
Athiests have used the evolution issue in a clever way to force a false conclusion, i.e. if life developed slowly it had to happen randomly and therefore, is meaningless. Some believers realize that an explanation of creation that depends on randomness is incompatible with God as Creator. They then respond by defending every word of Genesis as describing physical realities, when some of the allusions are clearly metaphoric, man being formed from “dust” for example, and the 24 hours “days”.
But I think the choice is a false one. I don’t see why creation could not have happened gradually. I don’t see how it detracts from the omnipotence of God the Creator for it to have happened gradually.
Again, I think what happened is lost in the mists of time and the physical reality is essentially unknowable. The Orthodox have an opportunity to contribute to the debate by pointing out that truth can be discerned from something that remains mysterious. All the energy expended trying to tie down exactly what happened eons ago is wasted, IMHO.
Michael, Christopher, and Nancy – you folks will probably not be happy with my view here. It’s ironic, though, since the last time I discussed this with someone, I said that I didn’t buy into darwinism and that it would be shown to be wrong someday. My interlocutor called me a “fundamentalist” and stormed out! Can’t make everyone happy.
Getting back to the topic of the thread – it is still an awfully ugly fish.
Tom, I agree that too much specificity on these matters obscures rather than enlightens,yet when I tried to avoid such specificity in the interest of accuracy, I caught the secular version of hell–screamed at for not giving a direct answer. It is the fate of empiricists to know a great deal about things while understanding nothing. I don’t care about the physical timeline. I do not agree with everything Fr. Seraphim wrote either. If he were still with us physically, I am sure he would have modified and deepened his understanding as well. Neither is the issue as simple as randomness vs design. That is just a starting point. Three other big issues that need to be considered:
1. Death
2. More complex life forms coming from less complex ones
3. The specific identity of each created thing and being.
As Fr. Hans pointed out, death is an element of progress for evolutionists but not for Christians, but more importantly, death did not exist until sin came into creation.
More complex life forms coming from less complex ones is incompatible with Christian understanding because God gave each and every thing He created, each and every living entity a specific identity (what St. Maximus the Confessor called logoi). In addition, he gave us His image and likeness, breathing into us a living spirit. That spirit enabled us to recognize the logoi of each thing in creation and name it. That ability is part of stewardship by which we can fulfill the divine command to dress and keep the earth: Order His creation and bring it to fruition and perfection.
Neither do I agree with Fr. Hans’ characterization of time as either linear or cyclical. It is neither and it is both. It is a commodity being gradually consumed by eternity. One scientific “fact” that Jim and I ought to agree on is that time is not static or constant. It is mutable. Einstein postulated that time was relative to the speed of light and that has been experimentally verified many times. Once time is recognized as mutable, however, what about the time mesaurements that are so important to the evolutionists?
When God entered His creation in the person of Jesus Christ, He experienced time and death, yet never knew decay so is not of time. He still has that body along with our human nature. The Cross is a blackhole of sorts to and through which we are all drawn. As we approach the Cross in the fullness of time (when time ends with His second advent) we will either mock Him and pass into darkness or we will recognize and repent of our sins in the Light of His perfection and join Him in His Kingdom.
In a sense perhaps the scientists are correct, the phenomenal universe has been in existence for billions of years (although what is a year before the earth started circling the sun?) while it is also “The Year 7515 From the Creation of the World” (and counting) as the St. Herman Calendar prolaims on its masthead. (The Bibilical calculation from the Septuagint comes out to be ~7500 years as opposed to King James, et. al that place it at ~6000 years).
I’ll close with a quote from Fr. Stephen Freeman’s latest post: Why Do I Believe in God?
Tom C., you write: All the energy expended trying to tie down exactly what happened eons ago is wasted, IMHO.
“It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.” Proverbs 25:2
Hi. No — Depending upon who the person is, I cannot see the work as wasted time. Could you see yourself telling Henry Morris – ‘your career is a waste of time.’ Nor, Seraphim Rose (his study of the Patristic understanding of Genesis could be called his “life work”), nor Walter Brown — just to name three in my Book.
First of all, “tying things down exactly” is not a great phrase, for me anyways. But I’ll go with it for you, and just say ‘It’s not an impossible task.’ Unalterable clues are on the printed page in Genesis and other portions of the Word. The patristic fathers all took Genesis in the plain language it was written. (the word “literal” is unnecessary — Just “plain” though is good.) My main point, Tom, is that men do give back to God what he has given them. Men do love God with all their heart, soul, mind and their Strengths. And men do this joyfully.
Henry Morris headed a department at Virginia Tech. He gave his strengths back to his Lord, until his death last year. And wrote textbooks for schoolchildren so that they do not have to have it drummed into their head: You’re an animal. Now that I think about it — I love Henry Morris. And I love the children who benefit from growing up unashamed of God’s word. Feeling no compulsion to explain it away.
I don’t know whether you were already familiar with Walter Brown. What does a Christian man do with such an education as he earned from MIT? Other than give his God given Strengths back to his Lord. Brown is phenomenal. Other than my general assessment that he has developed his gifts and talents and offered them back to God, he is fascinating! He’s made bold scientific predictions premised on his creationist model of origins. They receive scientific confirmation. Here’s Prediction No. 19 which appeared in the 2001 edition of his massive book, In The Beginning:
Guess what — he was right, and was amply vindicated 3 yrs later. I am saying, he is deserving of my respect. And God gets glory for those amazing words given to Moses long ago.
Tom, to conciliate a little.
If you meant to say that everyday people pursuing there own particular callings — can’t drop everything, Leave their Station in life to try to understand everything about everything concerning Origins, I heartily concur with that! But perhaps a little bit, here and there, over the years we can share information in a way that’s manageable, timewise.
Here’s a cheerful note for you: The Creation Science people loved Seraphim Rose’s book, Genesis, Creation and Early Man.
Here’s a review called Orthodoxy and Genesis: What the Fathers Really Taught.
One line:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i3/orthodoxy.asp
Missourian writes: “For rigorous evidence on why we can trust the Gospels I refer you to the works of Mark Roberts. Read him and come back to discuss the contents. He addresses the core issues of the sources of the Gospels and the conclusions that can be drawn from the actual extant manuscripts. Real evidence Jim.”
It not evidence per se. It is one author’s interpretation of the evidence
combined with his speculations about its origins and transmission. I have not read his books, but I have read a number of pieces posted in his web site. I have also read L. T. Johnson’s books, and I believe to some extent he is in Roberts’ camp, though with some significant differences in approach.
Mark Roberts’ strength is that he is a very good apologist. His weakness is
also that he is a very good apologist. What I mean is that as an apologist as much as possible he puts a happy face on all the issues related to the reliability of the gospels. If you do that, then sure, it makes for a very strong case. I’ve read plenty of apologists, and he’s pretty good.
Missourian: “Once again, Jim, I don’t know why you spend time here repeatedly challenging the conclusions drawn by Christians . . . ”
If you’re going to argue that the gospels are reliable on the basis that the historical evidence supports their reliability, then your conclusion is an historical conclusion, not a “Christian” conclusion. It is a conclusion based on historical method, not on faith. It is
a conclusion based on historical method made by someone who happens to be a Christian.
Missourian: ” . . . , you simply do not accept what we accept to be evidence
and you never will.”
Personally, I believe in the possibility of objective historical knowledge, within the limits of that knowledge. I don’t think it’s just all a matter of presuppositions and preconceptions. Historical arguments should stand or fall on their own merits, not because they agree with a certain theology.
Michael writes: “More complex life forms coming from less complex ones is incompatible with Christian understanding because God gave each and every thing He created, each and every living entity a specific identity . . . ”
For centuries it was thought that the sun must orbit the earth, based on various passages in the Bible. Pesky thing, science.
Tom C., you write: All the energy expended trying to tie down exactly what happened eons ago is wasted, IMHO.
“It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.” Proverbs 25:2
Hi. No — I cannot see it as wasted time, Tom. Could you see yourself telling Henry Morris – ‘your career is a waste of time.’ Nor, Seraphim Rose (his study of the Patristic understanding of Genesis could be called his Life Work) nor Walter Brown — just to name three in my Book.
First of all, “tying things down exactly” is not a great phrase, for me anyways. But I’ll go with it for you, and just say ‘….yet, not an impossible task.’ Unalterable clues are on the printed page in Genesis and other portions of the Word. The patristic fathers all took Genesis in the plain language it was written. “Literal” is not necessary. Just “plain.” My main point, Tom, is that men do give back to God what he has given them. Men do love God with all their heart, soul, mind and their Strengths. And men do this joyfully.
Henry Morris headed a department at Virginia Tech. He gave his Strengths back to his Lord, until his death. And wrote textbooks for Schoolchildren so they do not have to have it drummed into their head: You’re an animal. Now that I think about it — I love Henry Morris. And I love the children who benefit from growing up unashamed of God’s word. Feeling no compulsion to explain it away.
I don’t know whether you were already familiar with Walter Brown. What does a Christian man do with an education earned from MIT? Other than give his God given Strengths back to his Lord. Brown is phenomenal. Other than my general view that he has developed his gifts and talents and offered them back to God, he is fascinating! He’s made bold scientific predictions premised on his creationist model of origins. They receive scientific confirmation. Here’s Prediction No. 19 which appeared in the 2001 edition of his massive book, In The Beginning:
Guess what — he was right! And was amply vindicated 3 yrs later. I am saying, he is deserving of my respect. And the words God gave Moses appear to me more and more Amazing all the time.
Conciliating some:
Tom, if you meant to say that Everyday People pursuing there own particular callings — can’t go leave their Station in Life to try to understand everything-about-everything concerning Origins, I heartily concur with that! But perhaps a little bit, here and there, over the years we can share information in a way that’s manageable, timewise.
Here’s a cheerful note: The creation science people loved Seraphim Rose’s book Genesis, Creation and Early Man. Here’s one review called Orthodoxy and Genesis: What the Fathers Really Taught.
One line:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i3/orthodoxy.asp
If you want to — I would like to hear what it is about Father Rose’s teaching you cannot buy, at this particular point in time.
Jim H, Do you actually read anything I write
You write:
I told you quite some time ago that I don’t consider my Christianity to be a “belief” or a matter of “faith.” I consider it to be a matter of fact and knowledge.
Please see Note 88
Note 88, what if you don’t “believe” but “know”
.
Note 109, Jim H. you have communicated to us that you are an atheist,
do you have anything else to say?
First, the teaching that the Sun orbited the Earth was also found in the writings of Greek philosophers. Many people who valued the their works supported that theory.
Second, the position of the Earth in the solar system has no real bearing on any of the theological or spiritual teachings of the Church. Any description of the process of Creation by God would have to be couched in terms that mere humans could understand, it could never be fully accurate.
Thirdly, we have another example of your unidentified “religious person” and his easily refuted argument. Who made the argument? When? In what venue? Based on what Scripture? Is it taught by any reputable religious body today?
There are many atheist who hold idiotic beliefs about Area 51 and Bush’s conspiracy to blow up the Twin Towers, does that fact, undermind the intellectual integrity of your atheism. Of course, not, they are just crack pots and you don’t have to defend their ideas just because they are fellow atheists.
Lastly, your very concept of science presupposes that there exists order in the natural world and that the orderlyness is eternal. For instance, you know that Newton discovered the law of gravity in the 18th century. You don’t think that the Law of Gravity applied only in the 18th century, it is considered just as valid in the 21st century. Essentially, modern Western scientists believe in the existence of eternal order. Hmm, sounds like somsething a God would create. Randomneses is just as viable a possibility. The natural world doesn’t have to have laws, it could simply lurch around in a random fashion. Islam teaches that Allah recreates the world every second through his will and that Allah is not bound to be consistent to anything he did even a millisecond before the present. This world-view accounts in part for the fact that Islamic culture has lagged Western culture in science. Please note, before you trot out the usual list of Muslim accomplishments, you have to eliminate Muslim apostates and non-Muslim slaves, such as the Christian architects who built the Blue Mosque in Jerusalem.
Missourian writes: “I told you quite some time ago that I don’t consider my Christianity to be a “belief” or a matter of “faith.” I consider it to be a matter of fact and knowledge. . . . what if you don’t ‘believe’ but ‘know'”
Could you flesh that out a little bit more? What it is that you “know,” and with what degree of certainty? I mean, “Christianity” is a pretty big thing, involving different texts, symbols, metaphor, history, parables, traditions, interpretations, doctrines, disciplines, modes of worship, revered teachers, and a large number of groups that disagree with each other about most all of those things.
Note 122, Jim H, don’t you have something else to do?
I consider the teachings of the Orthodox Church to be true. This site contains many references to respected Orthodox authors on many topics. You can start reading at nearly any point.
I have explained at least 10 times in the last year why I consider the teachings of the Orthodox Church to be true. You didn’t absorb it then, you won’t absorb it now. I actually wrote a rather long (somewhat rambling) post to JamesK on the topic of why I consider the teachings of the Orthodox Church to be true. It is only about 3 weeks old, you can dig around in the archives for it. No I don’t have answers for every conceivable theological question or explications of every single mystery in the Bible. I do know that Jaroslav Pelikan spent a lifetime studying the history of Christianity and came to rest in Orthodoxy. I find that persuasive among many, many other facts.
Yes, there are many ideas out there about God. God gave us freedom to think, study and experience and draw our own conclusions. In the end, we have to make a decision. We all make our decisions because even “not deciding” is deciding.
There are also many ideas out there about the best system of government. Within just the United States there are many different ideas, attitudes and philosophies. Most people are rational and don’t just throw up their hands and say “I’m giving up on government because there is such disagreement among people about what is the best form.” We all have a duty as citizens to inform ourselves on the issues, consider them and vote as responsibly as we can. In the end, we have to make a decision. We all make our decisions, because even “not deciding” is deciding.
So Jim it appears that you have reached your decision, it applies appears that you just can’t abide the idea that other people have reached conclusions other than yours and you have to spend hours, days, weeks, months, arguing over the same points.
Life can’t be very much fun as an atheist, God is a pretty big force to resist. I hope you lose the struggle.
Missourian writes: “Jim H. you have communicated to us that you are an atheist . . . ”
That comes as a surprise to me. Perhaps that is an inference based on other things I said?
Missourian: “Thirdly, we have another example of your unidentified “religious person” and his easily refuted argument. Who made the argument? When? In what venue? Based on what Scripture? Is it taught by any reputable religious body today?”
It was the Catholic church. You know, the whole situation with Galileo. The heliocentric universe was considered unscriptural — the prayer of Joshua halting the sun in the sky, the earth being “immovable,” the sun not existing until the fourth day of creation, and so on. I don’t believe that there are any reputable religious groups that hold that position today, but there are a couple of interesting web sites that promote the idea. This one, for example: http://www.geocentricity.com/ It has all sorts of scriptural references showing that the sun must orbit the earth. It’s pretty convincing; only my materialism saved me from becoming a geocentrist.
My point was that you can make a heck of a scriptural and theological case for the sun orbiting the earth. But that doesn’t mean the sun orbits the earth. In other words, you can’t say that something is scientifically not possible, just because it would violate some cherished religious idea.
Missourian: “Lastly, your very concept of science presupposes that there exists order in the natural world and that the orderlyness is eternal.”
I don’t know about eternal, but I am unaware of any evidence that the laws of nature have changed in the last billion years or so.
Missourian writes: “I have explained at least 10 times in the last year why I consider the teachings of the Orthodox Church to be true. You didn’t absorb it then, you won’t absorb it now.”
Ok, when you were talking in terms of fact and knowledge, I didn’t know to what you were referring — Christianity in general, or Orthodoxy in particular.
But I’m a little confused . . . . Didn’t you say a while back that you don’t go to church? Or was that somebody else? If you don’t go to church, then presumably that means that you haven’t been through the Orthodox confirmation process, or whatever it’s called. If that’s the case, then saying that you know the teachings of the Orthodox church to be true would be kind of like saying that a certain restaurant is the best in town without actually having eaten there. Or am I missing something?
Missourian: “So Jim it appears that you have reached your decision, it applies appears that you just can’t abide the idea that other people have reached conclusions other than yours and you have to spend hours, days, weeks, months, arguing over the same points.”
Oh, I don’t care if someone has certain beliefs. I’m just interested in what people believe and how. In one way or another I have been dealing with religious and spiritual issues for almost 40 years, so I have a natural interest in the topic.
Jim, please. The restaurant analogy is bad. I was Orthodox in my heart long before I was receivd into the Church, many converts are that way. It is quite common for folks to come to their first Orthodox service and realize that the Church teaches what they have known all along. Its a Holy Spirit thing. Completely inexplicable to a legalist.
Being in the Church officially is quite important however because the acts of obedience to which the Church calls her members allow the Holy Spirit to reform us into who God means us to be.
If Missourian makes that step across the threshold, a whole new understanding will be opened to her.
Missourian writes:
Yes! It is. I’d like to share something with you, Missourian, about our story. There came a point in time it was obvious the Lord himself had asked us to educate ourselves about the foreign-to-us entity, the Eastern Orthodox Church. I had traveled as a University student to Leningrad in my early twenties – nevermind, it was still a foreign-to-me entity at 38. A Jewish Professor led our tour.
Well — Tom and I went to our resources, a L’Abri worker in Rochester.
“Where would we begin?” He said, “I would suggest Jaroslav Pelikan.” He said, “This scholar/historian is Lutheran with an affinity for Eastern Orthodoxy — partially because of Family Roots; his mother being Serbian.” Sounded perfect. We purchased The Spirit of Eastern Christendom and once we found Light and Life Publishing, we also read the Historical Road…, by Schmemann and I really loved that one, because I knew this writer to be Unashamed of the Warts on the portrait. An Orthodox himself, and clearly ‘honest’ about the history. Here was the kind of man with whom I would have loved to had sat, learned & had tea.
Jim and Missourian: If you have a moment to read Almost Persuaded. Here is something I enjoyed reading. It’s a response to Someone (don’t know him) who issued a call for Submissions: Christian Reconciliations. The call for submissions was to articulate why you might Leave a Church in which you were already firmly planted and Simply Consider joining another.
🙂 Dearest Jim – Can you refute me. I contend that You, none other than the Illustrious Dinosaur Serpent James J. Holman the First would be just as effective on the Home Team, and maybe even moreso — & you can tell Scott I said so — than are You in your present role as Devil’s Advocate. What is my arguement? An Olympics Trainer. He gets results, too, can you deny it?
I do have to contemplate something however: God ordained that evil be.
So, hmmmmm, there is Something compelling therefore, for the need of a Devil’s Advocate as a true opposing force. Seems to be part of the mystery concerning God’s display of his Glory. Now, does the devil have “an edge?” I think so — the hatred/jealousy/Etc. is genuine and sustained. The motivation is very deep. Sustained ad infinitum to litigate against God and God’s Own, and it is not contrived. There is just has that added Umphhh!!, that particular Sharp Edge! if you know what I mean. If someone hates you, they have your every detail (Subtil Serpent?) on the mind at all times.
But, then so does a Lover. “Thou God seest me.” Genesis 16:13
Note 118. Michael writes:
Yes, that is what gave me confidence in the beginning. As I began to read, I saw that Orthodoxy comprehended, and thus coherently explained, much of what I had already experienced with God.
Having said that, we have to keep our eyes open. As rich a tradition that Orthodoxy has, our present situation resembles the early church of Corinth, not Ephesus. An idealized notion of “Orthodoxy” should not (and ultimately cannot) supplant the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
JimH
I have only described a few of the events in my spritual life. I have intentionally chosen not to discuss a great many events in my personal experience because of the foolishness of releasing that much information over the internet. You have crossed the line and you don’t have the right to any further information.
In nearly every post for a great long while I have stated that I am not a theologian or a formal student of theology and I don’t pretend to be. There are respected scholars who have published lengthy dissertations on many topics in Orthodoxy and anyone who is interested has access to them.
As usual, the line of argument has strayed from its original point and the debate has been diverted into dozens of other topics.
Back to my original point, the most common charge against theists is that they believe without evidence. Of course, this very formulation of the issue predetermines the outcome. “Belief” in the common lexicon is considered different from “knowledge.” Knowledge is something grounded on fact, while ‘belief” and “faith” are not. I am aware of this common usage, however, I asserted that there exists evidence which a rational, logical and educated person can consider to support the existence of God, and, although no one will ever be able to explicate all mysteries, there is enough evidence for a decision.
For people who want to believe, there is Sufficient Evidence. For those who do not want to believe, there can be no Conclusive Evidence. And this is just the way God has it.
What makes one believe? And another to not?
As many as were ordained to eternal life believed. Acts 13:48. One clue, surely?
What’s behind ‘sufficient evidence?’ No common Daily Bread. God’s Daily Bread is enough, it is sufficient, satisfying for the moment and deeply satisfying for all moments of all time and unto ages of ages. Amen!
Why should it be thus? Rushing in where angels fear to tread…..
Let God display his manifold glory, his Beauty he has chosen to display for all eternity out of his Fullness. He makes even the wrath of men to praise him.
What wonderful words are ‘knowledge’ and ‘knowing.’ Adam “knew” his wife, and she conceived…’ And the Second Adam knows his own.
“Those who were Ordained to eternal life, Believed.” Acts 13:48
Proverbs 21:1
Non nobis Domine
rather to God be all glory
Tom C., if I may get back to the subject of those cute Coelecanthe pups.
Note 111.
I apologize for posting problems yesterday, and sending two similar
ones 109/111.
Here is a question.
Do you believe that — x “animals died, killed and devoured one another since their first appearance on earth, and not only after the appearance of man?”
Listen to Richard Dawkins if you will, and I like his sensitivity:
Kalomiros pleads timewarp, I guess you’d say. He says the Fall affected everything after and BEFORE — like a tree running down to the roots, and this is why yes, you have the death/dying before Paradise. You know…………come to think of it…………. wouldn’t he have not had a problem with the canons prescribing the icon of Adam naming the animals? Because I’ve never seen one where Adam looks like a “Highly Evolved Beast” descending from the Coelacanthe Face.
At any rate, is that one of the lines of Kalomiros’ speculation you reject?
But you say,
I do not believe Any One I’ve ever read said God in his OmniPotence could not have done things anyway he wanted to do them. He is totally Sovereign Lord and King and Completely Able to get his foote in the door anytime and anyway and anyhow he chooses. They say, “God won’t violate anyone’s will.” But think how feeble is our will, and how wooing is God. Which is stronger?
But — I try to contemplate the possibility of what you have said: “creation happening gradually” — how would that work? And there is the matter of order. First Adam, and then Eve? How could that Possibly have come about ……….gradually?
Jesus said, From the beginning he created them male and female.
Missourian
I would consider Pelikan’s belief in ecumenism was just as motivating a factor for his move to Orthodoxy as it was for Neuhaus’ move to Rome.
Missourian, out of curiosity, on what grounds have you rejected the many Protestant assertions that the Orthodox and Catholic traditions are blasphemous and heretical? Is it because you find Protestant believers to be “weak examples” of the Christian faith in practice, because their arguments are not Scriptural or because they’re not logical (or none of the above)?
Missourian writes: “Back to my original point, the most common charge against theists is that they believe without evidence. Of course, this very formulation of the issue predetermines the outcome.”
You know, I think that many people are attracted to religion not because of any evidence at all, but just because of the sheer beauty of it. I’ve often noticed here that when the home team speaks from the heart, what they say resonates in a kind of strange and unexpected way. But when they try to make a rational argument for it, it falls flat; it doesn’t resonate. I’ll give you an example of what I mean.
A couple of years ago I went to the local Antiochan (spelling?) Orthodox church on “ethnic festival day,” or whatever it’s called. It’s a congregation split 50-50 between Arabic and English speakers. I was at the back of the church talking to the priest about a couple of icons. While I was talking to the priest, a high school kid who was a member of the church came in with some non-Orthodox high school boys and girls to “show them the church.” A few feet from me was an icon, displayed on a stand at the back of the church, which I had discussed with the priest. As the school kid entered the church, he bowed down and kissed the icon, in a gesture that was utterly unselfconscious, beautiful, and genuine. Though it lasted only a moment, I was very moved by it, and that’s actually my most vivid memory of my visit to the church. In that brief moment I think I had more of the gospel preached to me than I would have gotten in 20 sermons. It made me reflect on the difference between the icon as an object of intellectual inquiry (my experience of it) vs. the icon as a vehicle of worship (the kid’s experience of it.)
In that sense, I think religion often works on people the same way music does. It’s not that it denies rationality, but that it communicates on a different level from rationality. Unfortunately (from my perspective) religion also insists that this, that, and the other thing must be literally “believed.” That’s why I stick with music.
The Jewish Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel once said that God created man because He likes stories. I like to think that God created man because He likes music too. If man is created in the image of God, it is interesting to wonder if perhaps God also enjoys the latest goth metal album. Of course, I don’t have any evidence for that.
Nancy –
I agree with what you wrote here:
I think everyone would do better to keep the following things in mind:
1) No matter what you believe happened, whether the world appeared suddenly out of nothing – like someone being “transported” on Star Trek – or whether you believe that all the matter in the universe was compressed into a ball the size of a pea, which then blew up and started this incredible chain of events, the thing is mysterious. We can’t truly understand either scenario. I’m amazed at unbelievers who can cite the big bang sequence I just outlined and say that it all makes sense and that they don’t see what is mysterious about it. Truly the result of brainwashing.
2) 6,000 years and 6 billion years are both equally irrelevant compared to eternity. For Biblical literalists I ask: how old of an earth can you accept as being consonant with creation by God? For unbelievers I ask: how young does the earth have to be for you to believe in creation by God? Then I ask both: what does it matter?
My favorite words on this are from Pascal:
Man’s Disproportion See number 72 for the whole passage
3) Whether or not you think we are “descended from apes” it is humbling to go to a zoo and watch a gorilla for an hour. It is pretty apparent that we are, in some strange way, related, even if that only means that God created humans and apes instantaneously with many similarities. Maybe we were created so similar to Mr. Gorilla in order for us to learn humility.
I don’t like to bring up the Galileo controversy because it is so poorly understood and given to carciature by unbelievers, but it is true that many Christians for years insisted that the sun revolved around the earth. And it does say so in the Bible. I maintain that it was never in the least important to the faith to interpret the passages as being scientific and it was a huge waste of time to argue about it.
I would consider Pelikan’s belief in ecumenism was just as motivating a factor for his move to Orthodoxy as it was for Neuhaus’ move to Rome.
The Book of Ephesians: Grant it Oh LORD, I pray with all my heart, one altar.
Note 127.
Dear Tom,
Thank you for response. We’ll be in Minnesota.
Note 127.
Tom you’re persistent
See Tom?
Do you see You’ve hit the nail on the head. Who indeed IS amazed? None who adhere to Big Bang Theory because it makes Naturalistic Sense. It’s all explained without a miracle involved, isn’t it? Even the original idea of the term evolution, which meant ‘unfolding’ — does not present itself as ‘Unfolding Miracle’ – does it? Because the original explosion which happened in a Fraction-of-a-Second was an accident, isn’t that what they say? But, not so with God’s Creation Week. For the span of an Entire Week! God is speaking things into existence. He “works” six days, before he rests. .
So the Big Bang was a big fat accident, that’s what everyone thinks — and everything that followed was simply boringly “expected.” Big Mystery, huh?
WHEREAS, the Plain Reading of Genesis which the Patristic Fathers used — hands to you on a Silver Platter one thing: I AM performed a Miracle from a Personal God, Holy Trinity.” “LET US make…..” spoke things into existence! Tom, anyone thinks; really? how? What a mystery! This God has my Awe, Praise and Wonder! Let me tell you about Him! He even created in an unlikely order — can you imagine? the Sun on the fourth day? Wow – I wonder! Herein is a cause for: True Amazement from beholding a Miracle of Life — that is the cause for it occuring to the mind: “Mystery Indeed!” I want to know and be in that Mysterious One!
Is there a Moral to the Creation Story?
Remember: A Miracle means D E P A R T U R E from Physical Laws. The Big Bang has No Miracle, other than an awesome accident. But The Holy Trinity did — a Long Week of a Series of Miracles. Things began with miracles; and from there on out, one is not irrational to take the Normal Pattern of events as in itself a manifestation of Grace.
Entropy Note:
Even entropy is not all it is cracked up to be, and I think Christopher was pointing out God still performs an interruption to it –crossing the Red Sea, many things like that, and the Bursting of the Bonds of Death. So, the curse from the Fall is being reversed. Awesome! Up from the beasts? No thanks, Kalomiros and Company. I remain with Rose and the Patristic Fathers: a) Paradise. (Adam and Eve are Good Looking 🙂 b) Fall from Paradise. c) Icon of God bringing up Adam and Eve from their bonds. d) Final Restoration of All Things.
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/noel/imatges/resurec.jpg
One final note to Tom C., and I apologize if I’m wearing out my welcome and beginning to sound like a dripping faucet, God forbid (Proverbs 27:15)
The adorable Chimps.
What’s so humbling? I’d love to descend from a Chimp — no problem. Or, what about those cocoons from which come caterpillars and moths/butterflys. Even an Oak Tree begins as a humble acorn.
‘
Tom Next time I see you-all, I’ll tell you about a friend from San Salvadore, Ana. You may have seen her on the local news stations…..she taught the gorillas at Como Zoo sign language. True! She learned the skill back in El Salvadore.
Our primary “humbling” was to be Genuine. God leads and Adam follows. He did not do that. I believe the ascetics write that the things the demons fear the most *to this day*, are a) Genuine Meekness. b) Genuine Humility. God leads, I take him at his word, watch my heart for inclinations wanting to be deceived — because with all the voices in the world, I will surely hear somewhere just the thing I want to hear. God grant discernment! c) Trust and Obey.
These cute chimps.
There is NO evolutionary relationship between humans and chimps. Even if the DNA showed similarity — that means little. Why? Because even if a cloud is made up of almost 100% water — does it follow that it’s related to a watermelon which is 98% water?
Do similarities matter? Yes, but the significant thing to make note of are Differences! that exist, for example, between Humans and Chimps. Now they say that Parrots can rival Chimpanzees in their ability to reason. Are birds supposed to be our close evolutionary cousins? Hmmmm. They have much smaller brains than Chimps.
Going out to the Como Zoo. Why are we like the Chimps afterall? Simple. Same Designer, same Awesome God.
🙂
Chimps and watermelons.
Forgot to tip my hat (female equivalent) to Radio broadcast with Ken Ham.
Nancy writes: “There is NO evolutionary relationship between humans and chimps. Even if the DNA showed similarity — that means little.”
Ok, if DNA doesn’t do it, what WOULD count as evidence of an evolutionary relationship between humans and chimps?
I didn’t think of that question. How is it Jim, you are adept in knowing how to ask the Next Question, and the Next? How did your Mother & Father & Grandmother keep up with you? When you’re sweeping a room do you get every last piece of unseen dust in every corner 🙂
I think I have the answer. O.K. Answering discreetly as I can: (Note 130.) The Clouds & the Watermelons? Similar but much too different, they are not one-of-a-kind.
Or, shortening it Not Reproducing in Like Kind. If two creatures can — then you can show an “evolutionary relationship.” Evolutionary for me means ‘unfolding within like kind’, or ‘mutating/changing within like kind’ & there is not a fixity of species.
I guess it is hard to believe Francis Collins says (in reference to the Chimp Genome Catalogue),
Closest Relative? What is he talking about — Springer Spaniels and Border Collies, those are kin. Many examples in the Plant and Animal Kingdom are “kin.” Why is he saying Chimps and Humans are close kin. That is wrong.
Noah’s Ark. For the record, I hope you realize that One (male/female) of Every Kind were put onto the Ark which does not mean two of everything you see today from Poodles to Pooh Bears! One head of THE KIND was all, that’s it.
Remembering the oft-repeated phrase in Genesis, God created and they reproduced “after their kind.”
I guess there is around 95% similarity DNA between Chimps and Humans. But the 5% difference represents 150,000,000 (million) DNA base pairs within every single cell of the Chimp, and of the Human, which are Different. (Out of a possible 3 Billion base pairs w/in every single cell). That is simply Too Different.
Chimps come from an original Kind of land animal created on the Sixth Day; it is not known which original Kind *yet* but with the Genome Catalogue perhaps it will be determined. They were created the same day dinosaurs, all land animals and the same day Adam and Eve — our Grandparents — were created.
I hope you don’t have another question anytime soon…. we’re Traveling tomorrow
But thank you
I would consider Pelikan’s belief in ecumenism was just as motivating a factor for his move to Orthodoxy as it was for Neuhaus’ move to Rome.
JBL, can you expand on this?
The really amazing thing, and what makes darwinism implausible, is that the human genome is 70% similar to that of a yeast cell. Also, 60% of the genome, from all different locations, plays some part in expression of the eye. The more is learned the more mysterious it gets.
Jim, co-incidence does not mean causation. Similarity does not mean that one came from another, the higher from the lower. Such thinking is one of the fundamental logical flaws in the evolutionary approach. Observations are conformed into a narrative to fit a pre-conceived bias.
Measurable and significant experimental bias occurs in even carefully designed double-blind research studies. There is no such thing as an experiement involving evolution. It is all metaphysical speculation on observed data. See your friend Richard Lewontin whom I quoted above.
IMO there can be no scientific evidence to show that humans came from chimps because it did not happen (not even the hard core evolutionists would proclaim that)–nor is there any evidence that we have a “common ancestor”
What is interesting to me is that the very same conservative Christians who have rejected Darwisnism as an explanation for the origin of the species have enthusiatically embraced Darwisnism as an explanation for the widening social and economic inequalities that have occurred in America over the past 30 years.
Darwinism holds that the evolution of the species was the result of the survival of the fittest. The strong survive and thrive, while the weak die and are breeded out of existence. This is a mirror image of what Conservative Christians believe is responsibile for the widening gulf between rich and poor in the United States. Conservative Christians believe that weath is a reflection of a person’s innate worth as a human being and to tax a rich person is like punishing someone for having superior attributes.
Chris Banescu recently told me that millionaires and billioniares have more money then the rest of us, only because they are smarter and work harder.
Obviously who can’t see that the Wall Street Hedge Fund Manager who creates wealth through the merger and acquisition of companies, followed by the laying off career employees, outsourcing of their jobs to India and liquidating and looting employee pension funds, deserves to be compensated at least hundreds or thousands of times more than the ordinary working person who toils 40 – 80 hours a week. What moron won’t admit that it would be wrong to impose an inheritance tax on Paris Hilton, because to do so would be to punish her for her extraordinary hard work and brilliant contribution to society.
I wish I could think like a conservative Christian. Then I could look down upon the less fortunate who Jesus told me to help as lazy, stupid inferiors, and attribute my good fortune in life, not to luck, God’s blessings, or an accident of birth, but to my own brilliance and genetic superiority.
Dean, Once again you (a) completely mis-represent what I actually stated and believe, (b) use annecdotal evidence and ignore the millions of hard working and responsible individuals who did not “get rich” by being lucky or using unethical management practices, and (c) libel conservatives by attributing beliefs about the poor and the unfortunate that myself and an overwhelming majority of conservatives do not hold.
It’s indeed pathetic to see how you continue to ignore the message and the issues and continously attack the messengers and tell us what we think. This is typical radical-leftist ideology dressed up as “compassion”.
Unfortunately, Dean, your solution is a form of secular chiliasm which also seems to inform your view of how to deal with Islam.
You post is also stated in class warfare terms and is actually modeled on the lines of the infamous “When did you stop beating you wife?” Question.
Go back and try again.
Note 137, Dean, odd that the only kind of “concern for the poor” that a Christian recognizes is the welfare state
Again, Dean, always conflates support for a welfare state with “concern for the poor.” If you don’t support a welfare state that punishes thrift and industry and rewards indolence and which has destroyed the Black family in America then em>”you just don’t care.”
eople who support strong families, strong and enduring marriages, strong Churches are seen as “conservatives.” However, this is the social safety net that existed for centuries. People who belong to close knit family take care of their own AND support charitable work through private organizations.
There is one evolutionist, William Provine, that I admire because he has the intellecutal honesty to state the truth:
“If you start from a …Christian point of view,” Provine tells his class, “then it cannot be true that human beings and chimpanzees share a common ancestor without some kind of supernatural intelligence and miracle in between. Human beings have immortal souls that live on after they are dead. This is a given. It is inescapable and must be true, and therefore, evolutionary biology of a naturalistic kind must be untrue.” (MD Magazine, March, 1994).
Mr. Provine is/was a professor of biology and history at Cornell University who routinely invited Phillip Johnson in to speak. Prof. Provine also has the intelligence to recognize that if one does not accept the Chrisitan paradigm, one also rejects the foundations of the Christian moral order. If one does that, it is incumbent upon said persons to come up with a new understanding as a foundation of ethics.
The interesting thing to me that so many people who actually do accept Jesus Christ have such trouble reaching the same inescapable conclusion as Mr. Provine. It’s not hard to see unless one is trying to serve two masters.
So Dean, it comes down to the choice again. You cannot continue to make a stew of secular idelogies and attempt to make that Orthodox by putting a sprig of sentimentalism on the top.
Evolutionary biology, economic justice, eqalitarianism and other ideologies that infect your posts are all types of materialistic determinism. None of them are compatible with Christianity.
Note 137, Dean, America is the economic promised land, that is why people risk their lives to get here
In my community there are six two-year community colleges. They offer evening and night classes. The cost per credit hour is $50.00. They administer scholarships for people who have dark pigmented skin. They offer a two-year degree in engineering, among many other job-generqating degrees. Employers are lining up to hire these graduates. A two-year committment, Dean, and the young person has a $35,000 plus job in his twenties with an unlimited future.
This is America. No where else does anything like this exist. If you don’t think so read D’nesh Souza on the lack of social and economic mobility in India.
If I have time today I will retrieve an article about a man from India who arrived with nothing but $10.00 in his pocket. He took a job in a Dairy Queen working night shift. Two years later he was the manager of two Dairy Queen’s. Seven years later, with SBA help, he was the owner of three Dairy Queen franchises. He lives quite well in Atlanta. English is his second language, he has a heavy Indian accent, and he is nut-brown. America is such a connupia of economic opportunity that a humble and energetic man can climb right into the upper middle class.
Conservatives preach against drugs, casual sex, and unwed pregnancies, these are EXACTLY the things that are keeping the Black teenager down.
These are the conservatives that you heap scorn on becaue they don’t support the welfare culture which has resulted in an illigetimacy rate of
70%. There is the result of your government compassion, Dean: destruction of the Black Family.
It would seem that this discussion should be on another thread Heart of Freedom
Dean says:
“What is interesting to me is that the very same conservative Christians who have rejected Darwisnism as an explanation for the origin of the species have enthusiatically embraced Darwisnism as an explanation for the widening social and economic inequalities that have occurred in America over the past 30 years”
Stop lying Dean! Your lying liar underbelly is showing!! Now go back to your idols… 🙂
Note 142,
Yes. Let’s allow Dean to only hijack half of the threads….;)
Note 142, yes, thread integrity seems to have been compromised
Sorry
Note 137. Dean writes:
You would need to help the poor escape their poverty, instead of keeping them mired in it. You would have to give more (liberals are notoriously tight with their own money), and dismantle the policies that destroy family and community and the other bonds necessary for prosperity. You would need to fight against the political machines (all Democratic controlled, BTW) that block school choice and other initiatives that contribute to self-respect and self-reliance. You would need to require minimum standards of behavior and decency.
Most of all, you would have to replace condescension with authentic compassion.
Response to poverty: education and job? or indefinite dole. You decide
Nancy writes: “Noah’s Ark. For the record, I hope you realize that One (male/female) of Every Kind were put onto the Ark which does not mean two of everything you see today from Poodles to Pooh Bears! One head of THE KIND was all, that’s it.”
What’s the difference between a kind and a species? Is it like you only needed one pair of beetles on the ark, rather than all 300,000 different species of beetle? If so, where did the other species of beetles come from post-flood? They all “evolved,” in less than 6,000 years? Sorry, but I don’t see how Noah’s Ark explains anything. It raises far more questions than it answers.
Michael writes: “Similarity does not mean that one came from another, the higher from the lower. Such thinking is one of the fundamental logical flaws in the evolutionary approach. Observations are conformed into a narrative to fit a pre-conceived bias.”
But evolutionary theory doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It ties in with all sorts of other science — paleontology, geology, astronomy, population genetics. Is there is a branch of science whose results consistently contradict evolutionary theory? Nope.
Michael: “There is no such thing as an experiement involving evolution.”
The issue isn’t whether there is an “experiment,” but whether evolutionary hypotheses can be tested by making non-obvious predictions that can be verified. In fact they can be. Evolutionary theory existed a long time before people knew anything about DNA. But the whole field of genetics ties in perfectly with evolution, to the point that it is a major tool in understanding evolutionary relationships between different species. And you can make your own predictions too. Next time you go in a fossil hunt and find trilobites, I’m going to predict that you’re not going to find a fossil bird with them. Next time you dig up a dinosaur skeleton, I’m going to predict that you won’t find a modern human skeleton there too. If life didn’t evolve, but all of these species existed together at on time, there’s no reason why you wouldn’t find things like that. In other words, evolution would actually be rather simple to refute.
Michael: “IMO there can be no scientific evidence to show that humans came from chimps because it did not happen (not even the hard core evolutionists would proclaim that)–nor is there any evidence that we have a “common ancestor”
I’ll ask you the same question that I asked Nancy — what would count as evidence of that? While it is true that we don’t have a complete history of all major species and transitional forms, we have enough that, combined with the other sciences, we can understand the big picture of what happened.
But let’s flip the question around. What exactly does YOUR view — whatever that is — explain? How do you explain geologic data showing that the earth is more than 6,000 years old? Why is it that we don’t find human skeletons next to dinosaurs? Why is chimp DNA close to human DNA than frog DNA is to humans? Given that evolution doesn’t explain everything, it seems to me that your position, as much as I understand it, explains almost nothing.
Michael: “Prof. Provine also has the intelligence to recognize that if one does not accept the Chrisitan paradigm, one also rejects the foundations of the Christian moral order.”
Someone better tell the pope that, because as far as I know, he doesn’t have a problem with evolution.
#149 Jim and others –
Way, way back in this thread I claimed that people confuse evolution and darwinism, when they are not in fact the same thing. Evolution is the physical process of life developing. Darwinism is a theory of evolution; it purports to show how and why the unfolding happened.
The pope has no problem with evolution; he has a big problem with darwinism.
Though you come at it with different aims, both you and Michael, confuse evolution and darwinism several times within a single post.
One of the most amazing experimental results in biology from the last 20 years was that of a plant that was bred “backwards” by selective gene mutation. Then the plant was subjected to “random” mutation pressure and voila… the original plant appeared! It has been a key claim of darwinism that if the “tape was played backward” life would emerge in a completely different way, since mutation and natural selection are random. This experiment suggested that the tape might play the same forward or backward. It is a devastating result for darwinian theory; however, it supports the idea of evolution.
Why is it not allowable to think that creation occurrred when God set all the physical constants of the universe (outside of time) so that man was not a random result, but an inevitable result? That is the gist of what Francis Collins is saying.