The biggest threat in the world of Charles Johnson isn’t Islamic Jihadism. It’s people who don’t agree with evolution. I will state again, I have no dog in this fight. I don’t care how we got here, however I don’t demonize anyone who believes in ID or Evolution. Charles is obsessed with this. This is his latest rant.
An Austin American-Statesman editorial hits the target: State board of education poised to embarrass Texas again.
Once again Texas is poised to court national disgrace because of the State Board of Education and the anti-evolution agenda of some of its members.
Whether there are enough votes on the 15-member board to end its efforts to force religious doctrine into public schools through the back door won’t be known for a while. The board might take a preliminary vote on standards for the public school science curriculum, and by extension the textbooks students use, in January. A final decision on the science curriculum will come in the spring.
A debate is raging over a state board requirement that students be taught the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories as early as middle school. That “strengths and weaknesses” language is a way to attack evolution and clear the path for religious doctrines like creationism and intelligent design to be taught.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that prohibiting the teaching of evolution is a violation of the separation of church and state. So the education board uses criticism of evolution as a way to get around that prohibition and impose religious belief into the study of life on Earth.
Fully 95 percent of college science and biology teachers in Texas oppose weakening the teaching of evolution by offering alternative explanations. The “strength and weakness” clause only confuses students by inserting a religious doctrine into the study of science.
That, of course, doesn’t help students. It only hurts them when it comes to learning accepted scientific theory. But that’s fine with board members, who are unconcerned about the detrimental effects of their policies.
Too many members of this board are on a religious mission, not an educational one. That’s clear to anyone who has followed its members and their efforts to inculcate conservative religious views into public education over the years.
Those evil ID people. How dare they not believe what in Evolution. They are a threat to our nation. That is the mind of Charles/Nancy! We are not allowed to have alternate theories!
Tags: Charles Johnson, lgfsucks
I finally decided to write a comment on your blog. I just wanted to say good job. I really enjoy reading your posts.
It looks like the Austin American Statesman has the same problem that Charles and the rest of his anti-Christian minions have. They hate Creationists so much, they are completely unwilling to compromise. Many there would ban any discussion on any weakness of evolution from the classroom and fire a teacher who ventured off the written textbook. Why? They are afraid that someone might mention God in the classroom. They are so adamant against this that they would be OK with the same restrictions applied to evolution applied to global warming, where no opposition is allowed. They would be OK if teachers must teach what they are told and children must accept what the teacher tells them. A law was signed by Jindal of Louisiana that allowed teacher to venture off the text if need be without fear of retribution. LGF’ers were vehemently opposed to that law. (Use LGF’s search engine for Jinal for the article)
Now don’t get me wrong, I agree that ID should not be taught in the classroom without scientific evidence proving it and that won’t happen until after the rapture. There should be absolutely no mention of any god or religion in any class, including science in public schools.
However, there are holes in evolutionary theory. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong, it just means that it is not proven. For example, we have not found all the fossils needed to fill in all the gaps and we may never will. Those at LGF want any mention of those holes banned from discussion. The 95% percent of college science and biology teachers want any discussion of the weaknesses of evolution banned (although I would like to see how that question was worded). Would these teachers and scientists have the same view if the word “evolution” were replaced with… say Newtonian Physics, climatology or global warming? Probably not. So why the fear of showing the incompleteness of evolution. Why the fear of discussion? Why censor the facts and limit them to only those that support the theory and ban the facts that don’t? Yep! They are that afraid that someone might mention God in the classroom. They accuse Christians of thinking that evolution is an attack on God. It appears that it is quite the opposite. These “evolutionists” are afraid that disproving evolution will prove God, which is equally absurd!
ArcherB,
I agree with you. I have no dog in this fight. I just don’t like how Charles is going after creationist/ID people with a passion. He hates them more than the Islamists.
“Once again Texas is poised to court national disgrace because of the State Board of Education and the anti-evolution agenda of some of its members.”
Man Charles has such a diluted sense of reasoning. Its not “anti-evolution”, its merely offering the alternative to the Darwin THEORY. Macro evolution of humans from what ever ancient apes, kangaroos [according to Killgore Carp] is far from solid fact, which makes this evolution only ideology a pure indoctrination agenda in public schools. I’m a firm believer in God created man in His image & likeness in a 24 hour day, but this silly jihad of the lizard cult against others who believe the Darwin theory is a symptom of a paranoid skitzo cult leader behind it.
There are vastly more important issues facing this Nation that desperately need our attention. Charles & LGF have lost any importance in discussing the problems we really need to address…with common sense.
I don’t mind people who don’t agree with I.D. or Creationism, so long as they are respectful about it and towards the people who hold those positions.
What got my goat about this at LGF is that Johnson (and Killgore Trout and others there) were just absolutely insulting and condescending to no end towards Creationism itself (or towards I.D.), or to the people who
-accept either one and/or who
-have problems with Macro Evolution
The constant harping on the evolution topic coupled with the snotty attitude about the issue was the last straw for me at that blog.
From the article:
Maybe I’m wrong about this, but I’m fairly certain that when the United States was quite young, the Bible served as a classroom text book and/or eventually text books which contained Judeo-Christian lessons/content were utilized in American public schools, up through the 19th century.
I find this horrified reaction by some Non-religious folks towards any and all things religious (i.e., as though a Bible, menorah, cross, or whatever is like snake venom or the plague) to be very, very strange.
There’s a lot of stuff I don’t agree with, either, but I don’t mind reading about it, in order to learn.
For instance, I don’t like Islam, but I sometimes read about it (including reading parts of the Koran) just to know about the subject.
I don’t like liberalism, but I sometimes read articles by liberals about politics so I can be familiar with their arguments and positions on a matter.
I don’t really care if I.D./Creationism are taught in public schools, but, on the other hand, I also don’t see what the harm is if they are. I think people like Charles are worked up in some kind of hysteria over it.
So some kid in a class room might hear a lecture about ID, or hear a lecture critical of Macro Evolution, and decide there might be a god (or that Evolution is bunk), so what?
Another quote from the article above:
Okay, part 1 -
“That “strengths and weaknesses” language is a way to attack evolution” I think is great, why not allow it?
Critical thinking is supposed to be a part of the educational and learning process, but these militant Evolutions don’t want critical thinking to take place. Kids are just supposed to swallow an idea on blind faith, no questions asked.
If you are a Darwinist who is sincerely interested in the truth, in learning, in science, it should not bother you in the least that some scientific theory or another will be scrutinized.
Macro Evolution is treated by some of its advocates as though it’s religious dogma, however. You have to just accept it, you cannot question it.
From the article:
Criticizing Evolution is not a way to “impose religious belief” on anyone.
What this person is really saying is that “Materialism/ Naturalism/ Darwinism is my religion, and I do not want anyone criticizing it.”
Here are few fun quotes that you will *never* see Charles post for his open threads…
“To reach the positions held by the real scientists–which are then taken over by the Myth–you must–in fact, treat reason as an absolute. But at the same time the Myth asks me to believe that reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of a mindless process at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. The content of the Myth thus knocks from under me the only ground on which I could possibly believe the Myth to be true. If my own mind is a product of the irrational–if what seem my clearest reasonings are only the way in which a creature conditioned as I am is bound to feel–how shall I trust my mind when it tells me about evolution?…The fact that some people of scientific education cannot by any effort be taught to see the difficulty, confirms one’s suspicion that we here touch a radical disease in their whole style of thought. But the man who does see it, is compelled to reject as mythical the cosmology in which most of us were brought up.”
Christian Reflections
C. S. Lewis
(William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1967), p. 89
“Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs.”
Evolution of Living Organisms
Pierre-Paul Grassé
(New York: Academic Press, 1977), p. 8
“Paleontologists (and evolutionary biologists in general) are famous for their facility in devising plausible stories; but they often forget that plausible stories need not be true.”
“The shape of evolution: a comparison of real and random clades”
Stephen Jay Gould, et al.
Paleobiology, Vol. 3, 1977, p. 34
Read the next two quotes together and think about it…
“Naturalists must remember that the process of evolution is revealed only through fossil forms. A knowledge of paleontology is, therefore, a prerequisite; only paleontology can provide them with the evidence of evolution and reveal its course or mechanisms. Neither the examination of present beings, nor imagination, nor theories can serve as a substitute for paleontological documents. If they ignore them, biologists, the philosophers of nature, indulge in numerous commentaries and can only come up with hypotheses. This is why we constantly have recourse to paleontology, the only true science of evolution. From it we learn how to interpret present occurrences cautiously; it reveals that certain hypotheses considered certainties by their authors are in fact questionable or even illegitimate.”
Evolution of Living Organisms
Pierre-Paul Grassé
(New York: Academic Press, 1977), p. 4
“Paleontologists disagree about the speed and pattern of evolution. But they do not–as much as recent publicity has implied–doubt that evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution simply does not depend upon the fossil record.
…In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationst, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation. This does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven.
So just what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the “fossil evidence”, that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy.”
“Who doubts evolution?”
Mark Ridley
New Scientist, Vol. 90, Jun. 25, 1981. pp. 830, 831
Of course, this situation hasn’t changed in the last 25-30 years: it seems that the only incontrovertible evidence for macro-evolution is the assumed “fact” of macro-evolution. If evolution is your bag, fine. Just don’t try to convince me that it’s science–in the classical empirical sense–because it is not. Evolution is atheistic metaphysical speculation, as far as I’m concerned, and amounts to little more than the pagan creation myth for modern man.
Our children need to be taught *all* the relevant facts surrounding this issue.
…And BTW, I have my own copies of all the original sources for the above quotes. None of the evolutionists above were “taken out of context” or had their view mis-represented. I am well aware of this: The Quote Mine Project.
raibydayweather…Charles is vehemently against Creationism theory because he thinks it “stunts a child’s brain (thinking)” or something like that (I read it in one of his threads and it infuriated me because I think teaching the theory of the missing link-evolution does the same thing….it stunts critical thinking). So there’s your answer there…so basically he thinks CHRISTIANITY makes people “dumb”. And he’s soooooooo smart isn’t he??? How can he honestly keep up with these discussions and not let people discuss the WEAKNESS of the theory of evolution??? It’s not a shut and sealed case. CHARLES, WHERE ARE YOUR MISSING LINK SKELETON’S?????? Charles, you look like a moron lawyer trying to try a case but you are stumbling through your briefcase, pushing your dork glasses up your nose because you forgot to bring all of your evidence. Conversely speaking, the same can be said about Creationism (evidentiary wise), so then let us both agree they are both THEORIES, and therefore still missing key pieces that make them FACTUAL.
For arguments stake…and this is directly to you Charles, (yet you do not have the courage to comment outside of your tightly controlled dominion…now convenient), nevertheless, this question is for you and if you have any “real” rebuttal in defense of your “evolution is fact” argument”, you will meet the challenge.
Let’s pretend we’re in a courtroom, shall we?
My counter-argument is to first chip away at the cornerstone of your argument which is that the dinosaurs roamed the Earth millions of years ago. What can you say then of the many cave drawings depicting dinosaurs from just thousands of years ago before we had school books to teach us what they “look like”??
http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm
Let me guess..you are going to say these people went out and collected ones and assembled them themselves like modern day archeologists and THEN drew pictures of them….RIGHT??? Before I go any further with my counter-argument, I await your reply.
I know, you will not have one, because you must desperately stick to the theory that dinosaurs roamed the Earth millions of years ago to give creedence to your macro-evolution theory, lest it start to unravel like a moth-eaten old sweater. You sir, are a fraud. Not a “critical” thinking, introspective-professorial sage, but rather a temper-tantrum throwing fascist who is trying desperately to turn the screws on a leaky argument through the means fear, suppression and influence. To me, your true colors and deepest fears of “true discovery are leaving you to flail and hold on desperately to the thing that comforts you the most…bitterness.
I await your reply.
“rainydayweather” above..not “raibyday”, lol. Sowwy.
I just don’t like how Charles is going after creationist/ID people with a passion. He hates them more than the Islamists.
So, then, there is a contradiction between opposing Christian theocrats (the cdesign proponentsists aren’t exactly pushing the Navajo creation myth, after all) and opposing Muslim theocrats? By the way, the six day creation claim is in the Qur’an, as well (10:3, 11:7, 25:59, 32:4, 50:38, 57:4), though it gives no details.
Re #8
Which is obviously not true. Some of the world’s oldest universities were founded by Christians – and I don’ think stupid people would be founding universities, much less be interested in them.
Some of the earliest scientists were Christians/theists
(partial list: Johannes Kepler, Sir Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, Francis Bacon, John Couch Adams, Matthew Fontaine Maury, Gregor Mendel, George Washington Carver, Leonardo da Vinci, John Dalton, Rene Descartes, Galileo, John Philoponus, Georges Lemaitre).
There are Christians today who are scientists. There are Christians who have who have phD’s.
I made virtually straight A’s through-out high school and on into university, so obviously being a Christian does not make one stupid.
#10 Sura:
American Christians don’t want a theocracy, nor is wanting evolution to be permitted to be critiqued in a science class tantamount to creating a theocracy.
Ohhhh, ChARRRLLLEs, where art thou?
How ’bout any of his “minions”? Do any of you’s care to step up and engage in a “real” debate without your gang of insulters to back you up? *tapping fingers*
That’s right, you gotta have “stinky beaumont” there ready to beat someone either into submission or non-existence if they throw a monkey wrench into your agenda. phht
I should’ve added this ealier-
Re. #10 Sura:
(the cdesign proponentsists aren’t exactly pushing the Navajo creation myth, after all)
Advocates of Intelligent Design do not specify who or what they believe created the universe/life. They leave that open for speculation and debate.
And that is one criticism of them by Creationists. (See this page by Creationists, for example.)
Creationists are straight forward and forthcoming in telling others that they believe that the God of the Bible created the universe and everything in it.
Creationists (those who believe in a literal, six day creation account as recounted in the book of Genesis of the Bible) believe that Intelligent Design supporters make an error in refusing to specify that it is God who was behind creation/design.
Of course, while I was at LGF, Charles Johnson & Crew made no distinctions between Creationists and Intelligent Design supporters, and he lumped them all together in the same group.
I don’t think Johnson has made mention of Christians who believe in theistic evolution (Christians who have tried to reconcile macro evolution to the Bible), either.
rainydayweather,
There is a spot in the 7th layer of Hell reserved for Charles Johnson and his Nazi bootlickers over at LGF.
Fuck Chuck. Stupid asshole POS scumbag.
#10 Sura 109
Just off the top of my head I don’t think that is completely true. I recall the Qur’an being somewhat contradictory with regard to creation, claiming 2, 4 & 8 days of creation in various sura’s.
Six or eight days of creation?
Maybe this link will work?
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/i010.html
RE: #8
Are you serious?
If you are, you need to learn a bit more about the methods of geological dating of fossils, and science in general, for that matter.
/oh, and throw out the ‘fascist’ label all you want but it won’t make your argument any more factual. In fact, it reminds me of someone else in the blogosphere…. someone named Charles.
#17 One of the Banned
I take it from your screen name that you were banned from LGF like most of us here?
You don’t seem to like most of us here at this blog, and you don’t seem to agree with us on some topics, so I was wondering why you post here?
Rainydayweather the lefts alternative to Charles exposing at LGFwatch is retarded IMHO. I welcome everyone to post here. If they do not like it then it is not my fault that their heads where screwed on the wrong way. I personally like “On of the Banned” comment 17.
#17
Will you first begin your reply with addressing the EVIDENCE of cave drawings of dinosaurs? These and other artifacts ARE dated and historic, and these drawings and carvings were depicted LONG before we had school books to give us visuals of these creatures. How did these primitive peoples “know” what these creatures looked like??
I know what your next argument is going to be..carbon 14 dating of fossils, carbon 14 is a radioactive element with a half-life of 5730 years. This means that half of the carbon 14 will decay in 5730 years. By 50,000 years, it will be almost completely gone, so it certainly can’t be used by evolutionists to prove that dinosaurs lived 50 million years ago. There would not be any carbon 14 left in the sample to measure after 50 million years.
And PLEASE do not compare me to The One who Shall Not Be Named. No one called you a fascist. This is not LGF and I hope we can have a civil discussion.
#19, avideditor.
I wasn’t asking for “One of the Banned” to be banned from this blog, or anything like that.
I understand that this blog is pretty tolerant and welcoming of a wide spectrum of views.
Is “One of the Banned” a liberal from “LGF Watch?”
I don’t visit “LGF Watch” that much, so I am not familiar with who posts there.
Although I am not adverse to visiting sites/blogs whose views don’t match mine, I usually don’t post to them and enteract with them.
I don’t like liberalism, for example, so I don’t enjoy debating with liberals. I try to avoid it.
I might read liberal articles or blogs from time to time (to learn what their beliefs are), but because I don’t agree with them, I don’t like talking to them. I find it painful.
So I can’t imagine why someone who apparently does not like us or our moral/ political/ religious opinions at LGF2 would bother to post here and talk to us.
#18
Yes, I’ve been banned from LGF for some time now.
I post here because without a dissenting opinion on certain issues, LGF II will become just another ‘echo chamber’, the same as LGF. I’d like to see this site to succeed, and the non-LGF articles are a big improvement, IMO (kudos to those who post the topics here).
And, yes, I find fault in the logic of the ‘New Earth’ creationists, as evidenced by proven scientific facts, and I am against the whole notion that all followers of Islam are radical terrorists that need exterminated, as espoused by some of the other posters here.
Basically, I have no interest in reading an ‘echo chamber’ of posts; if I did, I’d read the comments at LGF.
# 17 One of the Banned
From what I gather as to the geological dating of fossils, most are dated by the depth they are found, assuming a constant rate of coverage .
In reality catastrophic events could and would possibly cause rates of coverage far exceeding an assumed constant rate. Fossils themselves indicate a very high rate of coverage in order for them to even become fossils. In my mind this causes some doubt as to the exact age claimed.
The other methods of dating are also based upon certain assumptions which also cause doubt.
I think it was carbon 14 dating that was based upon a 5,700 year half-life which is based upon 50+ years of measurements. The real half-life would truly not be know for say 5,650 years and then the sample would have to be the same the entire time. Also the instruments used in the measurements are not absolute they contain errors. I have not seen a lot of evidence but from the evidence I have seen this carbon-14 and isotope dating of the same object yields results that differ greatly.
P.S.
Non-echo cambers are nice.
#22 One of the Banned
How would you classify yourself politically, as a liberal, a conservative or what? (I’m curious is all.)
One of the Banned:
I am against the whole notion that all followers of Islam are radical terrorists that need exterminated,
I don’t know if all Muslims are “radical terrorists.”
However, I’m also not sure if there is such a thing as a “moderate Muslim” or not. (I hope there is.)
As for the extremist Muslims, though, I think force might have to be used against them because they do not leave us a choice.
The radicals in Islam will not negotiate, and they look upon peace talks, diplomacy and such as weakness, and one to be exploited at that.
Their goal is to take over the world for Islam, and they will use violence to achieve that.
One of the Banned wrote:
And, yes, I find fault in the logic of the ‘New Earth’ creationists, as evidenced by proven scientific facts,
I’m a Creationist who does not agree with macro evolution (I take the story in Genesis literally, and that each day mentioned is a 24 hr. period), but I’ve never been interested in debating that stuff, or in trying to persuade an Evolutionist to believe in it.
I’m only interested in the topic when it concerns free speech and dissent – for instance, the fact that if you disagree with macro evolution at LGF will get you ridiculed and banned, and scientists have been “black listed” from jobs and scientific journals merely for rejecting evolution and/or speaking up for Creationism or ID.
It’s my understanding that was what the movie “Expelled” by Ben Stein was about, that his movie dealt with the discrimination and cenorship that anti-evolutionists face at work and at school.
I have not seen that Expelled movie myself, but Johnson over at LGF had a “conniption fit” over it and misrepresented the movie’s contents, its purpose, etc.
RE: #20-
You are basing your ‘evidence’ on obscure cave drawings that resemble no known dinosaur fossils ever found and you expect me to respond with C-14 data? Your science knowledge is lacking, and it is showing. Do you know nothing about radiological decay and the elements involved when dating material older than 6K years old? Study some paleontology (and some basic earth science while you’re at it) that doesn’t come from the Bible, and get back to me when you are properly armed for the discussion.
RE: #21-
LOL! I’ve posted there a few times, but nothing positive.
#23 BAR-
“From what I gather as to the geological dating of fossils, most are dated by the depth they are found, assuming a constant rate of coverage .”
Your ‘gathering’ of the geological dating methods is absurd.
#24 Rainy-
I’m surely not a ’social’ conservative, but I am a conservative.
# 26 One of the Banned
LOL!
# 26
The Principle of Superposition: As layers accumulate through time, older layers are buried beneath younger layers. If geologists can determine which way was originally “up” in a stack of layers, they can put those strata in the correct historical order. (Rarely, after a sequence of layers has been deposited and compressed to form rock, it may be literally overturned by thrusting of the Earth’s crust as continental plates collide. In these rare places the youngest rocks in a sequence are on the bottom, but such overturned sequences can be identified by the extensive faulting and breaking of rocks, and because the same original sequence of rocks is frequently present elsewhere in undisturbed order.)
http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/foundation_dating2.html
Ah yes the “layers date the rocks and the rocks date the layers”. Except there is no uniform layer around the world, except in a couple places, which requires you to ignore the vast majority of the planet. Plus there is multiple layers of the same type of rock at different levels. If one took one from one depth and offered it next to another layer to a Geologist, even with our supposed “rock solid” dating methods [pun intended] there is no possible way he/she could distinguish which one is supposedly older. Just because something “looks old” is a pre conditioned response already instilled through indoctrinating schooling. With great pressure “dirt” can be turned into rock in a very short period of time.
Besides every piece of true granite rock contains elements that prove it was never molten. If you take granite and heat to the molten point and let it cool, it no longer contains these characteristics of the granite bedrock around the planet, and for all sakes & purposes is no longer a piece of true granite.
http://www.halos.com/
This guy explains it with great detail. I have a great number of reasons why I believe this planet is very young and was “made” in a way that simply be described in no other fashion except as a amazing miracle.
This all gives us more opportunity to teach our own children. It reminds me of the extreme separatist type neighbors we used to have telling my kids that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that their mom knew more about that than people who say otherwise. It led to a great week of teaching and buying childrens’ science books for our kids.
I agree that Charles is obsessed, but I’ve never understood why these two ideals cannot be reconciled unless one is taking the Bible far too literally. If God is really all powerful (as I believe He is), then why couldn’t he have set in motion all of the things believed by the evolutionary biologist crowd? I’m not sure if ID encompasses that idea, I just see no reason for such a chasm between beliefs. (As for ‘missing skeletons’, most disintegrate after a hundred years or more, how many can be expected to be extant from prehistoric times? We can’t find everything.)
Lex
The idea the God put evolution in motion is called “theistic evolution”.
That is the evolution the Pope speaks about, the Catholic church or any other church would be denying their Creator if they accept Darwinian evolution, that simple fact is lost on Charles and apparent when he says that believing in evolution does not preclude belief in God and vise versa.
It all depends on what evolution you are speaking about, if it is Darwinian evolution that statement becomes absurd.
I think the chasm is caused by the basis of our beliefs, whether God created us in whatever manner or whether life evolves through a blind natural process.
Personally I don’t have such an easy time throwing out the Genesis account of creation because scientist don’t agree, and without calling into question the accuracy of the other 65 books.
I see it as a slipperily slope that could lead to questioning other things like the virgin birth since science cant prove it.
“(As for ‘missing skeletons’, most disintegrate after a hundred years or more, how many can be expected to be extant from prehistoric times? We can’t find everything.)”
Well we find dinosaur fossils that are supposedly 300 million years old. So no evidence required for human macro evolution who is supposed to be quite younger? I’m fairly certain that requires a good helping of faith to hold onto a belief without any evidence.
Darwinism and the bible are 100% incompatible, unless one takes the “re-interpretation” route and simply tries to make the bible say something beside what is clearly stated. People have done this using the “analogy” angle. The context of analogies in the bible is not used to create a fairytale story that has no basis in reality, instead the analogy is used to expound upon a description or a principle taught. If one forces Darwin macro evolution of humanity into the bible, at what point does a human “evolve into the image of God” if humanity developed from prior creations? The bible is definitive with no wiggle room that man was created in the image of God & in His likeness from the beginning, far different being than other life forms around them. God specifically forming the human body from element of the ground, but breathing into them “the breath of life”. The ancient Hebrew renderings declared “then man became a talking spirit”.
RE 32 Human bones can exist way longer. I think the Torah is compatible with evolution. Many rabbis agree. I think there is a difference then being pro evolution and anti-G-d. I think Charles was anti-G-d. Where are you getting your Hebrew renderings?
revparadigm-
“The bible is definitive with no wiggle room that man was created in the image of God & in His likeness from the beginning, far different being than other life forms around them.”
So, where does that leave homo habulis, homo erectus, and homo neanderthalis?
I think evolution is just the theory of the day. I do not think it perfect. But there is a difference between being pro-evolution and anti-G-d in my book.
“I think evolution is just the theory of the day. I do not think it perfect. But there is a difference between being pro-evolution and anti-G-d in my book.
Comment by avideditor — November 23, 2008 @ 8:35 pm”
You’re right, the theory of evolution changes with every new discovery, and I’d bet you’d be hard pressed to find more than a handful of fringe scientists who believes that the current evolutionary theory is ‘perfect’.
Your third statement makes no sense. Evolution is the predominate theory of how we, as a species, came to be and it is proven by the fossil record, while the Biblical version of our ‘creation ‘ has absolutely NO science behind it, other than faith in a book that has been heavily edited over the ages. It’s not a matter of being ‘anti-G-d’, it’s a matter of the scientific evidence.
/And yes, the ‘Young Earthers’ have plenty of websites to back up their beliefs, but none of them can withstand scientific scrutiny.
#36. One of the Banned wrote,
Maybe I’m not understanding you here, but… Darwinism does not and did not set out to explain the origins of life. The scientific study of the origins of life is called “abiogenesis.”
-but which is accurate and trustworthy, click here.
I would cite more links that that, but this blog is such that if you put in more than one link in a post, your post will not be published until or unless a blog administrator or moderator approves it. Until then, it sits in a queue.
I feel funny using the word “queue,” it’s such a British word.
The Torah has not been edited, Say what you will. I am not going to censure you. I think Charles is anti-G-d. If you want links of rabbis that say how evolution fits in with the torah I can provide them.
ranyday I will make any comment that you post with links go through. I will be on the look out. Just tell us because I don’t like the spam folder. I am sure many admins share the same view as me. I will do my best to save any comments with more than one link,
#38 avid editor (in regards to the post by “One of the Banned”).
I think it depends on what “One of the Banned” meant by “edited.”
In the case of the NT (New Testament) in particular, it is true that there have been scribal errors due to all the hand-copying over the years
(human beings are imperfect and not ‘Xerox’ photo-copying machines, after all),
but thanks to lower textual criticism, scholars can still reconstruct the Autographa of the Bible.
So the view that we cannot trust our present day Bibles (because of man-made additions, subtractions, sloppy handwriting, -whatever) is nonsense.
The DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls) testifed to the trustworthiness of the OT (Old Testament).
In addition, we literally have thousands upon thousands of NT (New Testament) manuscripts, some dated to within 90 years or so of the NT autographa, (with 90 years of time between the original and the copy being considered by textual scholars a small gap of time for ancient writings).
Here’s a nice layman’s summary of the importance of the DSS in terms of the Old Testament (source):
#39, avid editor:
Yeah, I know you and the other moderators are very good at approving all the posts that go through; I’m just somewhat impatient.
I like to see my posts go up immediately, so I try to avoid using more than one link per post if I can.
[homo neanderthalis] – simian; shown by mitochondrial DNA over 20 years ago as no direct relationship to human. Another evolutionary “theory” bites the dust.
BTW did you hear that until around 1000 years ago there was a hebrew chapter in the Koran that said the whole thing was BS. They kept copying the chapter until some one told them what it meant.
re 40 I do not believe in the NT. But as long as you respect my believes believe what ever you want.
“So, where does that leave homo habulis, homo erectus, and homo neanderthalis?”
The “neanderthal” skeletons have been lied about so bad, that very actually understand they were just as normal as many present day human. Disinformation concerning them has flooded the science community to the point where people think its a by gone conclusion they were some sort of missing link. In all reality they were a superior human to us! They lived far longer, their skeleton structure was far superior, they had better dexterity in their hands, bigger brains. If anything the human race is degrading, the gene pool has grown weaker & more corrupt. Neander women’s birthing experience was far different than today. Their hip structure is far better suited for it and probably gave birth with far less pain and effort than modern women with narrower hip structure. If anything these skeletons are evidence of the long lived people referred to in Genesis. Jack Cuozzo claims from studying their skeletons, they possibly lived 400 years and more, before dying of old age. The pronounced “eye ridges” is one of the most absurd myths ever known. Even today modern human process never stops depositing calcium in certain place on our skeleton, and the eye brow ridges are one. You could take most any old person’s skull and examine pronounced ridges. It is just a plain natural occurrence. Imagine after 400 or more years of this? The elongated skull is another common occurrence in very old people even today, because the muscles in the neck evidently cause this condition from years upon years of strain on the skull. Yet none of the Neander children skeletons have these supposed “ape like” characteristics.
http://jackcuozzo.angelfire.com/
If you want to hear from somebody who has done extensive examination of these skeletons, check him out. He witnessed first hand “scientists” distorting the skulls in order to make them appear more ape like, shaving off the chin bone [since apes have no chin] putting plaster in the skulls in order to extend the jaw further out. The name Neanderthal was given to them because the first known one was discovered in Neander valley, Germany, but have been found all over Europe and as down towards Israel to the south. These people had the same burial rituals as the many known cultures around thousands years ago with the “Red Ochre Burial” ritual. Yes this evidence has been attempted to be hid on purpose because archeologists know that a specific burial ritual extending from supposedly “50,000 years ago” to a matter of a few thousand years ago, would be a myth beyond comprehension from what is already known of how human culture changes.
There is no evidence of macro evolution. “Micro” changes within, better called adaptation is what we see in human remains found. Nothing more, nothing less.