It moves us forward in this way: Those we are to disciple will see that there is passion and devotion and sacrifice which signifies how real God is to us. Those who are strangers may see that something new has happened and that God is real. Those who are aliens and spectators, who are somewhat attracted by hype or friendliness, will begin to see the passion behind the friendliness. People are people, and they need other people, passion and cause and purpose. Entertainment will also attract them, but it will not bring commitment. The love of God as reflected in us.... such is obedience and such also is the glue that binds hearts to Christ.
Those who are not scientists often approach science as if it were some type of demi-god. Science is only a refined way of making observations. Science includes mathematics, statistics, and probabilities. Science also includes assumptions. The main assumptionis always uniformity, continuity. Science will always deny miracles because they do not fit into the assumption of uniformity and continuity. Science by itself will deny the resurrection based on observation and probability. However, Christians practicing science can do so, if they realize the limitations of science, and use science in the context of God as creator and sustainer.
Vanderweit's recent banner article about evolutionary teachings, neglects this important aspect of science; that its deductions often relies on unprovable assumptions. Often even atheistic scientists admit that 'science" makes mistakes, such as the prediction of the coelanth being a prehistoric fish since it was in the 'ancient" fossil record. But they claim that science corrects itself, without realizing that the mistake was not a scientific mistake of observation or deduction, but a mistake based on an incorrect hypothesis, on incorrect assumptions. Yet, due to their blind belief in their hypothesis, they continue to maintain this hypothesis, this theory. They generally refuse to consider any other hypothesis that may operate outside of their "naturalistic" and "atheistic" parameters and assumptions.
They also want to force deists to operate outside of the context of their deity, in spite of all their protestations to the contrary. This is a subtle but dangerous and a sad side to this discussion. They are saying in effect, "oh yes, you can have your god, of course, but please don't let it affect your work, your science, your public life, and not even your private life too much. it's a good side-line, a bit of personal comfort, but mostly not-relevant to anything important..." They prefer the blind watch-maker to a personal God. This is their context; this is their assumption. What is our assumption?
Steve, it is good to fight against worldviews, especially in the church. Philosophers and theologians love to fight and debate worldviews. But for a worldview to mean anything to a scientist, you must be able to demonstrate and show how it is affecting the scientific work they do. It is not just enough to say that it must be having an impact. You have to show the mechanism of the impact of their worldview on their work.
Our christian colleges would spend their time more profitably if they challenged the theory of evolution scientifically as well as philosophically and theologically. Maybe it is an uphill battle. But there are plenty of people, scientists, schools, colleges and universities who defend, accept, and swallow the theory of evolution and use it as a basis for interpreting everything they see. We do not need any more of those. We need people who are willing to stick out their necks, to postulate alternate theories, to examine other possibilities, to critique the status quo (which is the evol theory) and to search for other mechanisms. We really don't need a christian college that teaches and lives by a theory that ridicules scripture, miracles, belief, faith, God. There are plenty of secular universities that do that.
Many people often think that evolution is a scientific explanation and "creation" is a religious explanation. Nothing is further from the truth. Macro-evolution is actually a religious explanation for our existence, which depends on supernatural events such as genesis of life from non-life (for which there is no scientific evidence), or such as the big bang (which has never been observed, is not testable, repeatable as scientific "facts" must be). Nor is there a preponderance of evidence for the development of "more advanced" species from other species. Nor is there any significant observable evidence of the constant attempt of various species to differentiate into new species. The cited "evidence" is sparse, and highly debatable.
The evidence of DNA replication indicates self-correction in DNA mistakes, as well as the simple unlikelihood of survival of significant DNA mutations that might lead to new organs or new species.
It is also interesting that the theory of uniformitarianism was first initiated not by scientists, but by a lawyer named Charles Lyell, who postulated that "the present is key to the past". Ironically, "As his eyesight began to deteriorate, he turned to geology as a full-time profession.["(Wiki) Although Lyell was a teacher of Darwin, "Lyell, a devout Christian, had great difficulty reconciling his beliefs with natural selection . '(Wiki) Eventually he did somewhat reluctantly endorse evolution as a theory.
Charles Lyell got his idea of uniformity, the present is the key to the past, from James Hutton, who originally apprenticed as a lawyer but who trained and became a physician.
It is also interesting that Charles Darwin was not originally a scientist, but rather had an education and degree in theology. He began with attempting to get an education in medicine (which was pushed by his doctor father), but neglected those studies, and eventually achieved an "ordinary" degree (Bachelor of Arts) in order to become a parson (his father's second choice). It appears he was not too interested in following his father's wishes. He never did become a parson.
He was influenced slightly by Lamark who theorized on ''acquired" inheritance, which has since been discredited. He was also influenced more by Thomas Malthus, who postulated that the world would run out of capacity to sustain human life as the human race continued to populate. He had lots of money from his father, and this allowed him to roam the world, as well as to get in the door with various teachers, societies, and educated men.
Thomas Huxley was defender of Darwin, and influenced the thought of the day. In one debate, "Thomas Huxley's legendary retort, that he would rather be descended from an ape than a man who misused his gifts, came to symbolise a triumph of science over religion..... Huxley portrayed a polarisation between religion and science. He campaigned pugnaciously against the authority of the clergy in education, aiming to overturn the dominance of clergymen and aristocratic amateurs under Owen in favour of a new generation of professional scientists (Wiki)" ."
The influence of Darwin's own thoughts and speculations on evolution and survival of the fittest, as well as the adoration and support of the people of the day, led to Darwin's perception of God and faith and the body of Christ.
quote] "To Darwin, natural selection produced the good of adaptation but removed the need for design, ] and he could not see the work of an omnipotent deity in all the pain and suffering such as the ichneumon wasp paralysing caterpillars as live food for its eggs.[ He still viewed organisms as perfectly adapted, and On the Origin of Species reflects theological views. Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver.[ Darwin remained close friends with the vicar of Downe, John Innes, and continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the church,[ but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church. He considered it "absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist"[ and, though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he wrote that "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind. (Wiki)"[/quote]
It would have been better for him and for science if he had remained an agnostic about evolution.
For those who are interested, creationist Ian Juby has a new video on youtube about the errors of whale evolution, as well as "the faint young sun", and other topics. youtube.com/user/wazooloo You can also view his previous videos on this site, or view his presentations on the miracle channel.
Not all churches have lost members. "The Christian and Missionary Alliance has experienced steady and significant growth since its inception. In 1925, there were just 25,000 members in 392 churches.[9] Membership reached 50,000 members in 1950 and by 1976 had reached 150,000.[9] In 2006, there were 417,008 members in 2,010 congregations.[9] ….[10] As of January 1, 2011, there was recorded more than 2,000 U.S. churches with a combined membership of more than 430,000 regularly gather to celebrate Jesus in multiple languages, according to the C&MA website." But you are right, elder Lubbert, that most churches have declining membership, and some, like the Rom Cath that seem to have high membership still, have very low attendance and participation rates. In North America and Europe. On the other hand, in Asia and Africa, memberships and participation is generally growing. Complacency, apathy, lack of passion, lukewarmness, lack of trial and testing, lack of real committment, and affluence have all combined to reduce the desire of many for a God who saves and rules. The thorns and thistles of the world are reducing the yield of the Word sown. In many cases, the churches fertilize the weeds as much as the crop.
You have made some good points here. So my question is, can you apply your generalization to this situation of the silurian salt beds? Did they have ocean life remains in them. And do we apply the same logic to the remains of sea life found on mountain tops, that seas must also have deposited that sea life in place?
If we can assume that mountains moved dramatically from their original location under the seas, can we assume the possibility that these salt beds were also formed through some rather dramatic events, rather than a simple slow in-situ evaporation process?
Your example of how some lakes, Great lakes, (and of course the Salton Sea, the Dead Sea, and Manitou Lake) have dramatically higher salt content than the rivers that run into them, does demonstrate that lakes and oceans tend to increase salt concentrations over time. Five hundred feet of salt underground along with other layers to a cumulative depth of 2000 feet, is quite a bit, however.
I just became aware of another book called: "Unlocking the mysteries of creation." The Explorer's guide to the Awesome Works of God. copyright 2002. by Dennis Petersen. Master Books, Box 726, Green Forest, AR 72638.
I have just opened a copy of this on CD, and I don't know if the book is available on-line. But it raises some very interesting questions just in the first fifty pages, and makes points about the unreliability of radiometric dating, for example, among other things. The book is about 240 pages long with numerous references sited. Dennis first obtained a B.S. (science), and a M.A. in museum administration, spending several years as a museum curator, and then later took courses at a Canadian Bible College, and then taught there for four years. He founded the Creation Resoure Foundation in California.
I'm not suggesting that he is more expert than everyone else, but he asks good questions, and reveals many inadequacies of the evolutionary paradigm.
So in addition to Walt Brown's book, this one might be worth reading.
Just a correction for a mistatement I made above: the amount of ordinary present day seawater to evaporate to produce between 500 to 2000 feet of salt, would not be 1500 to 6000 feet. 1500 to 6000 feet of water would be required to solubilize all the salt at the maximum capacity of water to hold salt in solution. Normal seawater would require about ten times that much, about 15,000 to 60,000 feet, if it was assumed to be directly vertical water above the salt beds. However, if the area of seawater was much larger than the salt beds, for example about ten times as large an area, then the water would not have to be that deep, and then 90% of the seawater could evaporate before salt started to precipitate. If the residual seawater accumulated above the salt beds, then it could deposit all the salt there.
If much of the origin of the salt water was subterranean, it may have had a much higher concentration of salt than ordinary seawater. Given the apparent volcanoes that existed in the region at one time, and the heat associated to increase evaporation rates, maybe something else happened than mere entry of ordinary sea water and its evaporation at normal atmospheric temperatures.
The method by which God created, reveals His character, don't you think? An interesting video by Juby interviewing three scholars/scientists/speakers/writers who have researched on the implications of evolutionary thought on social morality. It's called the Dark Side of Darwinianism. The dogma's of evolution, natural selection towards survival of the fittest, onwards and upwards eugenics, are discussed in this video. http://www.youtube.com/user/wazooloo
Correction: in the second paragraph, I meant to say that a moist finger will stick to a bone fossil but not to stones in the same layer as the fossils. In that way you can distinguish a bone fossil from the stone around it.
Posted in: When Churches Lose Members
It moves us forward in this way: Those we are to disciple will see that there is passion and devotion and sacrifice which signifies how real God is to us. Those who are strangers may see that something new has happened and that God is real. Those who are aliens and spectators, who are somewhat attracted by hype or friendliness, will begin to see the passion behind the friendliness. People are people, and they need other people, passion and cause and purpose. Entertainment will also attract them, but it will not bring commitment. The love of God as reflected in us.... such is obedience and such also is the glue that binds hearts to Christ.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Those who are not scientists often approach science as if it were some type of demi-god. Science is only a refined way of making observations. Science includes mathematics, statistics, and probabilities. Science also includes assumptions. The main assumptionis always uniformity, continuity. Science will always deny miracles because they do not fit into the assumption of uniformity and continuity. Science by itself will deny the resurrection based on observation and probability. However, Christians practicing science can do so, if they realize the limitations of science, and use science in the context of God as creator and sustainer.
Vanderweit's recent banner article about evolutionary teachings, neglects this important aspect of science; that its deductions often relies on unprovable assumptions. Often even atheistic scientists admit that 'science" makes mistakes, such as the prediction of the coelanth being a prehistoric fish since it was in the 'ancient" fossil record. But they claim that science corrects itself, without realizing that the mistake was not a scientific mistake of observation or deduction, but a mistake based on an incorrect hypothesis, on incorrect assumptions. Yet, due to their blind belief in their hypothesis, they continue to maintain this hypothesis, this theory. They generally refuse to consider any other hypothesis that may operate outside of their "naturalistic" and "atheistic" parameters and assumptions.
They also want to force deists to operate outside of the context of their deity, in spite of all their protestations to the contrary. This is a subtle but dangerous and a sad side to this discussion. They are saying in effect, "oh yes, you can have your god, of course, but please don't let it affect your work, your science, your public life, and not even your private life too much. it's a good side-line, a bit of personal comfort, but mostly not-relevant to anything important..." They prefer the blind watch-maker to a personal God. This is their context; this is their assumption. What is our assumption?
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Steve, it is good to fight against worldviews, especially in the church. Philosophers and theologians love to fight and debate worldviews. But for a worldview to mean anything to a scientist, you must be able to demonstrate and show how it is affecting the scientific work they do. It is not just enough to say that it must be having an impact. You have to show the mechanism of the impact of their worldview on their work.
Our christian colleges would spend their time more profitably if they challenged the theory of evolution scientifically as well as philosophically and theologically. Maybe it is an uphill battle. But there are plenty of people, scientists, schools, colleges and universities who defend, accept, and swallow the theory of evolution and use it as a basis for interpreting everything they see. We do not need any more of those. We need people who are willing to stick out their necks, to postulate alternate theories, to examine other possibilities, to critique the status quo (which is the evol theory) and to search for other mechanisms. We really don't need a christian college that teaches and lives by a theory that ridicules scripture, miracles, belief, faith, God. There are plenty of secular universities that do that.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Many people often think that evolution is a scientific explanation and "creation" is a religious explanation. Nothing is further from the truth. Macro-evolution is actually a religious explanation for our existence, which depends on supernatural events such as genesis of life from non-life (for which there is no scientific evidence), or such as the big bang (which has never been observed, is not testable, repeatable as scientific "facts" must be). Nor is there a preponderance of evidence for the development of "more advanced" species from other species. Nor is there any significant observable evidence of the constant attempt of various species to differentiate into new species. The cited "evidence" is sparse, and highly debatable.
The evidence of DNA replication indicates self-correction in DNA mistakes, as well as the simple unlikelihood of survival of significant DNA mutations that might lead to new organs or new species.
It is also interesting that the theory of uniformitarianism was first initiated not by scientists, but by a lawyer named Charles Lyell, who postulated that "the present is key to the past". Ironically, "As his eyesight began to deteriorate, he turned to geology as a full-time profession.["(Wiki) Although Lyell was a teacher of Darwin, "Lyell, a devout Christian, had great difficulty reconciling his beliefs with natural selection . '(Wiki) Eventually he did somewhat reluctantly endorse evolution as a theory.
Charles Lyell got his idea of uniformity, the present is the key to the past, from James Hutton, who originally apprenticed as a lawyer but who trained and became a physician.
It is also interesting that Charles Darwin was not originally a scientist, but rather had an education and degree in theology. He began with attempting to get an education in medicine (which was pushed by his doctor father), but neglected those studies, and eventually achieved an "ordinary" degree (Bachelor of Arts) in order to become a parson (his father's second choice). It appears he was not too interested in following his father's wishes. He never did become a parson.
He was influenced slightly by Lamark who theorized on ''acquired" inheritance, which has since been discredited. He was also influenced more by Thomas Malthus, who postulated that the world would run out of capacity to sustain human life as the human race continued to populate. He had lots of money from his father, and this allowed him to roam the world, as well as to get in the door with various teachers, societies, and educated men.
Thomas Huxley was defender of Darwin, and influenced the thought of the day. In one debate, " Thomas Huxley's legendary retort, that he would rather be descended from an ape than a man who misused his gifts, came to symbolise a triumph of science over religion..... Huxley portrayed a polarisation between religion and science. He campaigned pugnaciously against the authority of the clergy in education, aiming to overturn the dominance of clergymen and aristocratic amateurs under Owen in favour of a new generation of professional scientists (Wiki)" ."
The influence of Darwin's own thoughts and speculations on evolution and survival of the fittest, as well as the adoration and support of the people of the day, led to Darwin's perception of God and faith and the body of Christ.
quote] "To Darwin, natural selection produced the good of adaptation but removed the need for design, ] and he could not see the work of an omnipotent deity in all the pain and suffering such as the ichneumon wasp paralysing caterpillars as live food for its eggs.[ He still viewed organisms as perfectly adapted, and On the Origin of Species reflects theological views. Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver.[ Darwin remained close friends with the vicar of Downe, John Innes, and continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the church,[ but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church. He considered it "absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist"[ and, though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he wrote that "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind. (Wiki)"[/quote]
It would have been better for him and for science if he had remained an agnostic about evolution.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
For those who are interested, creationist Ian Juby has a new video on youtube about the errors of whale evolution, as well as "the faint young sun", and other topics. youtube.com/user/wazooloo You can also view his previous videos on this site, or view his presentations on the miracle channel.
Posted in: When Churches Lose Members
Not all churches have lost members. "The Christian and Missionary Alliance has experienced steady and significant growth since its inception. In 1925, there were just 25,000 members in 392 churches.[9] Membership reached 50,000 members in 1950 and by 1976 had reached 150,000.[9] In 2006, there were 417,008 members in 2,010 congregations.[9] ….[10] As of January 1, 2011, there was recorded more than 2,000 U.S. churches with a combined membership of more than 430,000 regularly gather to celebrate Jesus in multiple languages, according to the C&MA website." But you are right, elder Lubbert, that most churches have declining membership, and some, like the Rom Cath that seem to have high membership still, have very low attendance and participation rates. In North America and Europe. On the other hand, in Asia and Africa, memberships and participation is generally growing. Complacency, apathy, lack of passion, lukewarmness, lack of trial and testing, lack of real committment, and affluence have all combined to reduce the desire of many for a God who saves and rules. The thorns and thistles of the world are reducing the yield of the Word sown. In many cases, the churches fertilize the weeds as much as the crop.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Todd, I told you that Ian Juby was mild compared to this type of comment from sevandyk and people like her.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
You have made some good points here. So my question is, can you apply your generalization to this situation of the silurian salt beds? Did they have ocean life remains in them. And do we apply the same logic to the remains of sea life found on mountain tops, that seas must also have deposited that sea life in place?
If we can assume that mountains moved dramatically from their original location under the seas, can we assume the possibility that these salt beds were also formed through some rather dramatic events, rather than a simple slow in-situ evaporation process?
Your example of how some lakes, Great lakes, (and of course the Salton Sea, the Dead Sea, and Manitou Lake) have dramatically higher salt content than the rivers that run into them, does demonstrate that lakes and oceans tend to increase salt concentrations over time. Five hundred feet of salt underground along with other layers to a cumulative depth of 2000 feet, is quite a bit, however.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
I just became aware of another book called: "Unlocking the mysteries of creation." The Explorer's guide to the Awesome Works of God. copyright 2002. by Dennis Petersen. Master Books, Box 726, Green Forest, AR 72638.
I have just opened a copy of this on CD, and I don't know if the book is available on-line. But it raises some very interesting questions just in the first fifty pages, and makes points about the unreliability of radiometric dating, for example, among other things. The book is about 240 pages long with numerous references sited. Dennis first obtained a B.S. (science), and a M.A. in museum administration, spending several years as a museum curator, and then later took courses at a Canadian Bible College, and then taught there for four years. He founded the Creation Resoure Foundation in California.
I'm not suggesting that he is more expert than everyone else, but he asks good questions, and reveals many inadequacies of the evolutionary paradigm.
So in addition to Walt Brown's book, this one might be worth reading.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Just a correction for a mistatement I made above: the amount of ordinary present day seawater to evaporate to produce between 500 to 2000 feet of salt, would not be 1500 to 6000 feet. 1500 to 6000 feet of water would be required to solubilize all the salt at the maximum capacity of water to hold salt in solution. Normal seawater would require about ten times that much, about 15,000 to 60,000 feet, if it was assumed to be directly vertical water above the salt beds. However, if the area of seawater was much larger than the salt beds, for example about ten times as large an area, then the water would not have to be that deep, and then 90% of the seawater could evaporate before salt started to precipitate. If the residual seawater accumulated above the salt beds, then it could deposit all the salt there.
If much of the origin of the salt water was subterranean, it may have had a much higher concentration of salt than ordinary seawater. Given the apparent volcanoes that existed in the region at one time, and the heat associated to increase evaporation rates, maybe something else happened than mere entry of ordinary sea water and its evaporation at normal atmospheric temperatures.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
The method by which God created, reveals His character, don't you think? An interesting video by Juby interviewing three scholars/scientists/speakers/writers who have researched on the implications of evolutionary thought on social morality. It's called the Dark Side of Darwinianism. The dogma's of evolution, natural selection towards survival of the fittest, onwards and upwards eugenics, are discussed in this video. http://www.youtube.com/user/wazooloo
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Correction: in the second paragraph, I meant to say that a moist finger will stick to a bone fossil but not to stones in the same layer as the fossils. In that way you can distinguish a bone fossil from the stone around it.