Richard, you said a while back, "The matter of origins is extremely important. It shapes our entire view of reality. For that reason, it's essential that we believers begin with the Scriptures, or better, the message and teaching of the Scriptures. The message there is that the creation is "good." That's so much more important than "true," especially when it's a holy God saying that word. "True" comes in at such a disappointing and distant second place, by comparison. The so-called creation scientists who try to make their own house of cards, also seem to trade in "good" for "true," and wonder why people aren't impressed with their findings. "" ""
I think this is an important statement. It is one I disagree with however, for this reason. It is a false (not true) dichotomy. How do you know if the message in scripture, that the creation was created "good", is true? How do you know what part of the creation is "good"? How do you distinguish between what God declared "it was good", compared to what is not so good anymore? Wouldn't you have to believe in the truth of scripture first, to believe creation was made good?
Evolutionary theory would postulate that creation was not made good. It just was. And by our standards it would not be good, unless weeds, disease, strife, battles, murder, hatred and selfishness are good.
It would seem that truth and goodness are inseparable. The truth is also that God often turns evil for our good. But that doesn't make the evil good on its own.
“Helder uses disagreements between scientists who totally disagree with YEC as proof that YEC must be correct. “ Again, Norman, let me reiterate that she does not do this, in spite of what you say. If you look closely at the argument, what she is doing is using a refutation of a particular evolutionary hypothesis of an evolutionist by another evolutionist, to demonstrate that the piece of evidence does not support an evolutionary explanation for the Cambrian explosion. Did she say that this proves that YEC must be correct? No, not as I read it. What she said was that YEC model or theory would expect a sudden appearance of fossils rather than a gradual appearance of fossils. The evolutionary model or theory expects a gradual appearance of fossils. Thus in this case, the Cambrian explosion meets the general expectations of the creation model more easily than meeting the expectations of the evolutionary model. Any explanations for the Cambrian explosion within the evolutionary paradigm, so far do not work. It doesn’t really matter whether it is YEC scientists or evolutionary scientists who have discredited the arguments for various evolutionary explanations for the Cambrian explosion.
You seem to worry about all the work done, the field work, the expense, the gathering of evidence, etc., that it is not getting enough credit. But that is not the point. Was it Edison who said about his many many efforts to develop a light bulb, that it was not a waste of time, but merely a learning about how many ways one cannot make a light bulb? I would say this is somewhat similar. If we knew all the results ahead of time, we would not have to do the research.
Finally, you do ask some very good questions, such as where are the missing genera and species in the Cambrian layer –why are they not there? And why are different types of animals in different layers sometimes – and how prevalent is this? Why are Precambrian fossils usually single celled without bones? However, a few questions of yours are making wrong assumptions, such as that YEC would accept 50 million years of Cambrian explosion. On the other hand, a good question of yours is how are other apparent “explosions” of mammals and flowered plants explained? And what is the problem with old earth creation science? Good questions, regardless of whether answers yet exist or not.
In your postulation (in your next installment) that YEC is bad for science and bad for faith, you will need to distinguish between attitude and process. Yes, ocassionally some YEC seem to have a reduced respect for scientific endeavor. But YEC science itself is in the same mode as any other type of science, in that it needs to investigate, experiment, satisfy confidence levels, and resolve incongruities. A couple examples of how evolutionary theory has been bad for science include the assumption that Coelanth fish was extinct when it wasn’t, and that tonsils and appendixes served no purpose, but were mere evolutionary residuals, and that only 1% of the DNA was valuable while 99% was “junk DNA”. YEC science assumptions would be that people would not expect useless stuff in the DNA, and now over 80% of the DNA has been found not to be junk DNA, and investigation is continuing. And tonsils and appendixes have been discovered to have a purpose, in spite of, not because of, evolutionary assumptions and presuppositions.
Is evolutionary theory good for science when it leads researchers to prematurely claim that there is 99% or 97% dna similarity between chimps and humans? When actually there is a 12% difference in size of the genome to start with, not counting a whole bunch of other differences, and that the similarity is no where near 99%? Is this good science?
Not saying who should be selected as director, but I think the significant leadership should come from synod (the elders), not from a CEO, not from a pope, not from a director. This would have implications for who might be selected as exec director, since he would operate as one who effects the decisions and purposes of Synod. As Larry suggested CEOs built the recession, which is true, yet politicians, theologians, and church politicians also can sometimes be mistaken, and cause huge problems. Capabilities and experience relevant to the requirements of the task do not ensure perfect success, yet they are beneficial for getting the job done.
An alternate possibility is that a preacher/pastor is retained for a period of five years. Then he could be renewed in his term, or perhaps not renewed, depending on the wisdom of the church council. This would make his term more similar to that of the other ordained elders, who serve for limited terms. Perhaps we could discuss the pros and cons of such a process. What would that do for freedom to preach? for security of position? for refreshment of ministry? for a focus on God? etc.
Strip mining of coal covers much more land globally than Canada's oil, which is a target of convenience, an irrational concentration of effort by enviros: From the July issue of Scientific American: " Other forms Of fossil fuel add more to the world's carbon budget, yet they do not draw as much ire (as oilsands). Perhaps they should. ln 2011 U.S. coal-fired power plants emitted nearly two billion meb·ic tons of greenhouse gases-roughly eight times the amount produced by mining, refining and burning tar sands. Many coal mines around the world create just as visible a scar on the landscape and an even bigger climate change legacy. Yet mines like those in Montana and Wyoming's Powder River Basin are not the targets of highprofile protests such as those facing Keystone XL; protesters do not tic themselves to the tracks to block the kilometers-long trains that carry coal from the basin day after day. The U.S. Geological Survey suggests that basin alone holds 150 billion metric tons of coal that could be recovered with existing technology. Burning it all would send the world flying beyond any trillionmetric- ton carbon budget. " (by David Biello)
Hey!? I agree Richard's ideas are "real", but are you suggesting that comments made by Dan K and myself are not "real"? And if so, which comments and why?
A new short video on some scientists/mathematician conversion from evolutionary belief to skepticism and disbelief in evolution. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKPKuk6gF-4 This is part 2 of a new series by Ian Juby who interviews these individuals, Dr. Jerry Bergman, with several PhD degrees and masters degrees associated with genetics and medicine, and Alan Bergman, an actuarial mathematician. This is interesting and enlightening from several perspectives. In one case the change from atheism to belief in God accompanied the examination of the scientific evidence, and in the other case, the change from a sort of irrelevant theism to an understanding of Christ as Lord of Life, and how that opened up the eyes to the revelation of nature and the inconsistencies of evolutionary theory.
"...Scott and Branch say about Safarti's MO -- he agrees with the arguments of two evolutionists disagreeing with each other and uses this as evidence that evolution is wrong. If it's true, it's "parasitic science" indeed."
I have not seen this so far in his book. I have not seen that he uses the mere fact that evolutionists disagree with each other as evidence that evolution is wrong. His sense of logic is too strong for that. I don't know where you get "parasitic science" as a concept in this instance. Scientific conclusions almost always rely on other work, and Safarti gives credit, and even agrees with many experimental evidence and initial conclusions of evolutionary scientists. He agrees that there is natural selection within populations, for example, but does not agree that it is proof of evolution. I don't know if scott and branch are merely displaying their bias, but based on your comments alone, I would say that they are.
Norman, the latest reports indicate there is a five % difference. "But using percentages hides an important fact. If 5% of the DNA is different, this amounts to 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them."(David DeWitt). In addition, to get this 5% difference, many pieces of the DNA are not included in the calculation for various reasons. When you include everything, you tend to get a similarity of between 81 to 87%, according to other scientists(CMI). This is what an evolutionary mindset does; it assumes a great similarity and so refuses to consider obvious or potential dissimilarities. Other reported differences: ICR reports that chimp genome is 10% larger than human genome, the y chromosome is less than 70% similar.
The issue in this discussion is not the size of the difference. The issue is the evolutionary a-priori assumption of similarities even when only a small part of the genome was initially studied. The issue is ignoring obvious dissimilarities as if they are inconsequential. The issue is how the research is reported in terms of its bias. How often have you heard that the difference between the chimp and human y chromosomes is as different as between human and chicken? (J.F. Hughes - Nature 463)
Eventually, truth and significance is discovered. But it is in spite of the evolutionary paradigm, not because of it.
Of course, one would also expect genetic similarities even without evolution; that is something not so commonly considered. After all, why would morophological and physiological similarities not be caused by genetic similarities?
Excellent response. Our mission efforts should include muslims for sure! God and the angels in heaven rejoice much over the one in 100 who is lost when he is found! So do we. And we should pray!
The larger question is how we deal with our perceptions of muslim culture, the violence, beheading, shariah, etc., when we must as citizens make decisions about how to deal with it. This is not much different in some ways than how we deal with practicing homosexuals or fornication or abortionists, or adultery by unbelievers, while at the same time witnessing to them and showing Christ's love. Except that this also of course has more serious ramifications in terms of shariah, polygamy, death sentences for dress code violations, "consequences", terrorism, suicide bombing, etc. Well, maybe not more serious than abortionists, but you get the idea... If muslim culture gains more control over more countries, the opportunities to witness for Christ will decrease more and more, don't you think?
As human beings, we are often prone to looking at the problems rather than the opportunities. I wonder whether it is at least as valid for us in north america to look at potential opportunties that climate change might offer us, as well as the increased risks and costs of climate change. For example, we presently have three to eight months of winter in most of north america. Siberia also has long winters, which are costly in terms of heating needs , short growing season for crops, frost damage to roads and equipment, need for additional clothes and housing, etc. Longer summers in some of those areas will allow more crop production to take place, and will reduce heating costs. Other opportunities might be to increase housing in temperate climates, and to reduce winter vacation travel to warmer climates further south.
We are often inundated with the potential problems and hazards of climate change; but can you think of potential opportunities that climate change might offer us?
Okay, I agree Richard is very open, and humble. But authentic? Everyone is authentic, especially here, I think.
I have just gone through a Meyer's Briggs personality analysis, and have found it interesting how people of certain personality types relate to other personality types. It is important to realize that being open to change, and being humble, does not make a person more "real" or authentic. They are just different. The fact that people are different, means they respond differently to different things and to different approaches. Some people react with their feelings, while other people react with their logic and thinking processes. People that are openly emotional are not more "real" than those who control the expression of their emotions; they are just different people. But it is important to realize how you react to something.
If you react to someone's expression of love with cold logic, rather than with emotion, you will fall into the trap of suspicion.
On the other hand, if you react to someone's expressions of details and facts and logic with an emotional reaction or with an expression of "feeling" about the personality of that person, then you will cause suspicion and frustration in the other person.
So the reason I asked why you thought Richard was more real, was not really to discover your feelings so much as to find out how you would substantiate that statement. So I can see he is more real to you in a very subjective sense; it is simply how you "feel", but I cannot see how that applies to the discussion of whether we ought to consider emphasizing teaching more creation alternatives rather than going with and being swallowed up by the general cultural flow of evolutionary teachings. Maybe you could make the connection and clear that up for me.
I do not have scott hozee's book.... and would need a justification for getting it.... I would prefer your synopsis of the idea expressed in it.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Richard, you said a while back, "The matter of origins is extremely important. It shapes our entire view of reality. For that reason, it's essential that we believers begin with the Scriptures, or better, the message and teaching of the Scriptures. The message there is that the creation is "good." That's so much more important than "true," especially when it's a holy God saying that word. "True" comes in at such a disappointing and distant second place, by comparison. The so-called creation scientists who try to make their own house of cards, also seem to trade in "good" for "true," and wonder why people aren't impressed with their findings. "" ""
I think this is an important statement. It is one I disagree with however, for this reason. It is a false (not true) dichotomy. How do you know if the message in scripture, that the creation was created "good", is true? How do you know what part of the creation is "good"? How do you distinguish between what God declared "it was good", compared to what is not so good anymore? Wouldn't you have to believe in the truth of scripture first, to believe creation was made good?
Evolutionary theory would postulate that creation was not made good. It just was. And by our standards it would not be good, unless weeds, disease, strife, battles, murder, hatred and selfishness are good.
It would seem that truth and goodness are inseparable. The truth is also that God often turns evil for our good. But that doesn't make the evil good on its own.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
“Helder uses disagreements between scientists who totally disagree with YEC as proof that YEC must be correct. “ Again, Norman, let me reiterate that she does not do this, in spite of what you say. If you look closely at the argument, what she is doing is using a refutation of a particular evolutionary hypothesis of an evolutionist by another evolutionist, to demonstrate that the piece of evidence does not support an evolutionary explanation for the Cambrian explosion. Did she say that this proves that YEC must be correct? No, not as I read it. What she said was that YEC model or theory would expect a sudden appearance of fossils rather than a gradual appearance of fossils. The evolutionary model or theory expects a gradual appearance of fossils. Thus in this case, the Cambrian explosion meets the general expectations of the creation model more easily than meeting the expectations of the evolutionary model. Any explanations for the Cambrian explosion within the evolutionary paradigm, so far do not work. It doesn’t really matter whether it is YEC scientists or evolutionary scientists who have discredited the arguments for various evolutionary explanations for the Cambrian explosion.
You seem to worry about all the work done, the field work, the expense, the gathering of evidence, etc., that it is not getting enough credit. But that is not the point. Was it Edison who said about his many many efforts to develop a light bulb, that it was not a waste of time, but merely a learning about how many ways one cannot make a light bulb? I would say this is somewhat similar. If we knew all the results ahead of time, we would not have to do the research.
Finally, you do ask some very good questions, such as where are the missing genera and species in the Cambrian layer –why are they not there? And why are different types of animals in different layers sometimes – and how prevalent is this? Why are Precambrian fossils usually single celled without bones? However, a few questions of yours are making wrong assumptions, such as that YEC would accept 50 million years of Cambrian explosion. On the other hand, a good question of yours is how are other apparent “explosions” of mammals and flowered plants explained? And what is the problem with old earth creation science? Good questions, regardless of whether answers yet exist or not.
In your postulation (in your next installment) that YEC is bad for science and bad for faith, you will need to distinguish between attitude and process. Yes, ocassionally some YEC seem to have a reduced respect for scientific endeavor. But YEC science itself is in the same mode as any other type of science, in that it needs to investigate, experiment, satisfy confidence levels, and resolve incongruities. A couple examples of how evolutionary theory has been bad for science include the assumption that Coelanth fish was extinct when it wasn’t, and that tonsils and appendixes served no purpose, but were mere evolutionary residuals, and that only 1% of the DNA was valuable while 99% was “junk DNA”. YEC science assumptions would be that people would not expect useless stuff in the DNA, and now over 80% of the DNA has been found not to be junk DNA, and investigation is continuing. And tonsils and appendixes have been discovered to have a purpose, in spite of, not because of, evolutionary assumptions and presuppositions.
Is evolutionary theory good for science when it leads researchers to prematurely claim that there is 99% or 97% dna similarity between chimps and humans? When actually there is a 12% difference in size of the genome to start with, not counting a whole bunch of other differences, and that the similarity is no where near 99%? Is this good science?
Looking forward to your next conclusion.
John Z
Posted in: Who Will Lead Our Denomination?
Not saying who should be selected as director, but I think the significant leadership should come from synod (the elders), not from a CEO, not from a pope, not from a director. This would have implications for who might be selected as exec director, since he would operate as one who effects the decisions and purposes of Synod. As Larry suggested CEOs built the recession, which is true, yet politicians, theologians, and church politicians also can sometimes be mistaken, and cause huge problems. Capabilities and experience relevant to the requirements of the task do not ensure perfect success, yet they are beneficial for getting the job done.
Posted in: Some Denominations Have Bishops; We Have Article 17
An alternate possibility is that a preacher/pastor is retained for a period of five years. Then he could be renewed in his term, or perhaps not renewed, depending on the wisdom of the church council. This would make his term more similar to that of the other ordained elders, who serve for limited terms. Perhaps we could discuss the pros and cons of such a process. What would that do for freedom to preach? for security of position? for refreshment of ministry? for a focus on God? etc.
Posted in: Climate Change - Wither Now?
Strip mining of coal covers much more land globally than Canada's oil, which is a target of convenience, an irrational concentration of effort by enviros: From the July issue of Scientific American: " Other forms Of fossil fuel add more to the world's carbon budget, yet they do not draw as much ire (as oilsands). Perhaps they should. ln 2011 U.S. coal-fired power plants emitted nearly two billion meb·ic tons of greenhouse gases-roughly eight times the amount produced by mining, refining and burning tar sands. Many coal mines around the world create just as visible a scar on the landscape and an even bigger climate change legacy. Yet mines like those in Montana and Wyoming's Powder River Basin are not the targets of highprofile protests such as those facing Keystone XL; protesters do not tic themselves to the tracks to block the kilometers-long trains that carry coal from the basin day after day. The U.S. Geological Survey suggests that basin alone holds 150 billion metric tons of coal that could be recovered with existing technology. Burning it all would send the world flying beyond any trillionmetric- ton carbon budget. " (by David Biello)
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Hey!? I agree Richard's ideas are "real", but are you suggesting that comments made by Dan K and myself are not "real"? And if so, which comments and why?
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
A new short video on some scientists/mathematician conversion from evolutionary belief to skepticism and disbelief in evolution. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKPKuk6gF-4 This is part 2 of a new series by Ian Juby who interviews these individuals, Dr. Jerry Bergman, with several PhD degrees and masters degrees associated with genetics and medicine, and Alan Bergman, an actuarial mathematician. This is interesting and enlightening from several perspectives. In one case the change from atheism to belief in God accompanied the examination of the scientific evidence, and in the other case, the change from a sort of irrelevant theism to an understanding of Christ as Lord of Life, and how that opened up the eyes to the revelation of nature and the inconsistencies of evolutionary theory.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
"...Scott and Branch say about Safarti's MO -- he agrees with the arguments of two evolutionists disagreeing with each other and uses this as evidence that evolution is wrong. If it's true, it's "parasitic science" indeed."
I have not seen this so far in his book. I have not seen that he uses the mere fact that evolutionists disagree with each other as evidence that evolution is wrong. His sense of logic is too strong for that. I don't know where you get "parasitic science" as a concept in this instance. Scientific conclusions almost always rely on other work, and Safarti gives credit, and even agrees with many experimental evidence and initial conclusions of evolutionary scientists. He agrees that there is natural selection within populations, for example, but does not agree that it is proof of evolution. I don't know if scott and branch are merely displaying their bias, but based on your comments alone, I would say that they are.
Hope you enjoy your fishing.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Norman, the latest reports indicate there is a five % difference. "But using percentages hides an important fact. If 5% of the DNA is different, this amounts to 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them."(David DeWitt). In addition, to get this 5% difference, many pieces of the DNA are not included in the calculation for various reasons. When you include everything, you tend to get a similarity of between 81 to 87%, according to other scientists(CMI). This is what an evolutionary mindset does; it assumes a great similarity and so refuses to consider obvious or potential dissimilarities. Other reported differences: ICR reports that chimp genome is 10% larger than human genome, the y chromosome is less than 70% similar.
The issue in this discussion is not the size of the difference. The issue is the evolutionary a-priori assumption of similarities even when only a small part of the genome was initially studied. The issue is ignoring obvious dissimilarities as if they are inconsequential. The issue is how the research is reported in terms of its bias. How often have you heard that the difference between the chimp and human y chromosomes is as different as between human and chicken? (J.F. Hughes - Nature 463)
Eventually, truth and significance is discovered. But it is in spite of the evolutionary paradigm, not because of it.
Of course, one would also expect genetic similarities even without evolution; that is something not so commonly considered. After all, why would morophological and physiological similarities not be caused by genetic similarities?
Posted in: What Is the Real Impact of Muslim Relations?
Excellent response. Our mission efforts should include muslims for sure! God and the angels in heaven rejoice much over the one in 100 who is lost when he is found! So do we. And we should pray!
The larger question is how we deal with our perceptions of muslim culture, the violence, beheading, shariah, etc., when we must as citizens make decisions about how to deal with it. This is not much different in some ways than how we deal with practicing homosexuals or fornication or abortionists, or adultery by unbelievers, while at the same time witnessing to them and showing Christ's love. Except that this also of course has more serious ramifications in terms of shariah, polygamy, death sentences for dress code violations, "consequences", terrorism, suicide bombing, etc. Well, maybe not more serious than abortionists, but you get the idea... If muslim culture gains more control over more countries, the opportunities to witness for Christ will decrease more and more, don't you think?
Posted in: Climate Change - Wither Now?
As human beings, we are often prone to looking at the problems rather than the opportunities. I wonder whether it is at least as valid for us in north america to look at potential opportunties that climate change might offer us, as well as the increased risks and costs of climate change. For example, we presently have three to eight months of winter in most of north america. Siberia also has long winters, which are costly in terms of heating needs , short growing season for crops, frost damage to roads and equipment, need for additional clothes and housing, etc. Longer summers in some of those areas will allow more crop production to take place, and will reduce heating costs. Other opportunities might be to increase housing in temperate climates, and to reduce winter vacation travel to warmer climates further south.
We are often inundated with the potential problems and hazards of climate change; but can you think of potential opportunities that climate change might offer us?
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Okay, I agree Richard is very open, and humble. But authentic? Everyone is authentic, especially here, I think.
I have just gone through a Meyer's Briggs personality analysis, and have found it interesting how people of certain personality types relate to other personality types. It is important to realize that being open to change, and being humble, does not make a person more "real" or authentic. They are just different. The fact that people are different, means they respond differently to different things and to different approaches. Some people react with their feelings, while other people react with their logic and thinking processes. People that are openly emotional are not more "real" than those who control the expression of their emotions; they are just different people. But it is important to realize how you react to something.
If you react to someone's expression of love with cold logic, rather than with emotion, you will fall into the trap of suspicion.
On the other hand, if you react to someone's expressions of details and facts and logic with an emotional reaction or with an expression of "feeling" about the personality of that person, then you will cause suspicion and frustration in the other person.
So the reason I asked why you thought Richard was more real, was not really to discover your feelings so much as to find out how you would substantiate that statement. So I can see he is more real to you in a very subjective sense; it is simply how you "feel", but I cannot see how that applies to the discussion of whether we ought to consider emphasizing teaching more creation alternatives rather than going with and being swallowed up by the general cultural flow of evolutionary teachings. Maybe you could make the connection and clear that up for me.
I do not have scott hozee's book.... and would need a justification for getting it.... I would prefer your synopsis of the idea expressed in it.
John