Kosh

I think he was using the "it makes me feel good" argument for God.

Albion

Behave yourself, Oolon...

Reldas of Melchezidec

Greetings all,
Sorry to be the subject of much confusion. I suppose you could say...I was throwing out a line, since I figured there was some big fish gaurding this discusion- as it pertains to the teaching youngsters. Its seems I got one, or at least a cephalopod! I hope Morpho doesn't consider the discussion dead. My reply should take longer than Colluphid's two and a half or so, who I deeply admire and who's respect I hope to gain <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> . After all, I only wish to clarify...
Peace and Grace,
Reldas

scigirl

Hello Reldas of Melchezidec, and welcome to internet infidels!

Feel free to introduce yourself <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=43" target="_blank">here</a> and tell us a little about yourself.

scigirl

Quetzal

Hi Reldas: I certainly don't consider the issue dead. It really does represent a genuine offer. There are no "guardians at the gates"* per se, as the school doesn't fall under the US system. However, I would strongly recommend anyone who chooses to respond do so as DMB suggested and present the evidence as scientifically as possible (given the subject matter). I DO have some time constraints, however. The Board of Governors meets on Tuesday, so I need to have whatever before then. I'd be happy to receive your input. You can either choose to post it here, or PM me.

I think it would be interesting for the regulars to see your ideas. Don't worry about the sharks ripping it to shreds - it's what they're trained to do.

*(Except, of course, for Scigirl the Munificent (PBUH) who guards us all from the Flames of Trolldom.)

Reldas of Melchezidec

Drat, missed the deadline <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> . I'll finish my Apologetica de Reldas and have it posted by Thursday- if only for giggles...
Sorry to dissapoint, I tried to finish,oh how I tried! Blast this weak flesh!(wringing hands)
Peace and Grace
Reldas

Reldas of Melchezidec

Hola!
I wish I had more time to write… but I think I wrote a small book here already. I didn’t know if there were posting size limits or what, so I just threw in as much as I could an went over the time allotted(hopefully I won’t be condemned to trolldom) I suppose you are the editors, now. I am not very good at apologetics yet, or I’d have had it ready by Tuesday, but I am certain God will give me the wisdom to bring others to him. I deigned from exclusively quoting scripture, though it can have a powerful message and short and sweet, but I’ve complemented it with some of my own thoughts on science and epistemology. I suggest the reader keep an open mind as she or he reads, and to earnestly seek clarification from me on any fuzzy points. Please don’t worry about offending me- taking offense is against my religion! Let me add one thing, if you are utterly disgusted with how I explain things thus far, then just take this message home:
Reldas: “Perhaps a separate coarse covering spiritual matters in the form of riddles, paradoxes, and parables will let the young minds decide for themselves how to interpret the natural world.”
Oolon: “Sure. Provided they’re taught skeptical thinking too, along with mystical mumbo-jumbo. They should be taught that spiritual experiences can be wonderful... and that they can be induced by electrochemical changes in the brain.”

Here we are in perfect agreement that spiritual courses be taught presenting a variety of spiritual and philosophical subject matter along with scientific curriculum. I will suggest a list of such important spiritual material to anyone interested- especially Morpho. I'll try to kepp it short and sweet in the future, but if you really want to know what I’m really on about…

Apology de Reldas.
Heh. I think it best to start with the turn-based dialogue I have with Oolon:

Reldas: blah blah(see above post)...blah = clarity

Oolon: "as far as I can see, you’re not really opposing evolution... which was the point of Morpho’s post."

Reldas: yep, I don't oppose most of evolutionary theory. Not as long as I have at least five senses and a cognitive factor...Behold!! I will assimilate it instead. It is not such an important thing for me to know personally , but I study Evolution so that I can “become all things to all men, so that some might be saved.” Forgive me if I misinterpreted, Morpho, but I took "Present the hard evidence that will convince these kids that goddidit" as, well, what it says!!! If you wanted me to combat evolutionary analysis instead of use it to prove my point, than you must first meticulously remove all of my sensual organs and don't forget to lobotomize the cognitivity out of me!!(I'm sure a few of you may want to after all of this )

Oolon: “Fine. If viewing the universe as the creation of some god makes you happy, then all power to you.”

R: This is a big contention between us. You assume happiness or some other variable state of mind is my point in discussion. The unfathomable thing for you is: whether happy or sorrowful, there is always an anchor in the unmovable. My mood fluctuates, but "I've learned to be content in all situations..." My faith and constant prayer for wisdom have given me some small insight, which I hope to share with my fellow humans. I like to share- sharing does make me happy. It’s selfish for me to have acquired this overabundance, and then to put it all under a self-righteous bowl. Please don't skeptisize me for sharing my insight- unless you want me to stop it that bad; just skeptisize my insight alone.(You’ve been pretty good on this point- thus earning some of my respect- for whatever it’s worth now and in the future)

O: “I only quarrel with those who want to claim that the myths of middle-eastern goatherders are factually true.”

R: I have found all sorts of interesting things concerning the existence of humanity and their relation to the rest of the universe in these "myths", which I hope to show here and in later posts. Yes, I concede that some of what is related from the authors to the Jewish people is a little embellished in a poetic sense. I suppose you could say it is encrypted… but that is a whole new topic to be addressed later.

O: “As for reveling in creation, if you mean creation as the glories of the natural world, then theists do not have a monopoly on that!”

R: Ohhhh soooo true!!! I'm glad you brought it up-saves me time. Yes, I can clearly observe and scripturally verify that anyone can have moving spiritual experiences. In fact, it makes a perfect case for the verse: “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen” (Rom 11:36) In that - it is we who become more receptive and feel his presence fleetingly- not that some of us are sent a spirit of happiness - a bit of a misconception on the part of some. Whether we think we can fully attribute it to endorphins post-facto or not, anyone can experience God to a certain extent- it is a common effect from emersion in His creation, or even employing faith-based beliefs and actions in ones life. Even if you say that you can attribute spiritual experiences to chemicals- heck we are chemicals! I can attribute food as just chemicals, but the wise and insightful just skip that step and praise God for their food. Who knows why atoms attract? Chemists can describe reactions, but not why, so they ignore it for the most part. The Physicists say magic, and from that point on science can take over. Christian science does not have to deal with ignoring the cause, or saying it just does,(magic is the best explanation I’ve seen yet), or even put their faith in a tool of cognitive man by saying “Science does not know now, but one day may”, but, theoretically, a Christian scientist is free. Scientific observation and the wonderment of life comes natural to many of us. It is silly for us to just revel in each other as sentient beings when God gave us so much curiosity and plenty of mysteries to satiate it with. I agree that many Christians believe more of what they are told than what they should, but we all do to a certain extent if we trust the one telling us such information. However, I assure you that a careful reading of the whole bible will inevitably guide a Christian to wisdom and understanding, including an open mind to scientific observation. Above all, a Christian admits that there is only God, and our reconciliation to Him through his son Jesus. Therefore, one is free to observe nature if one knows that that is one’s calling; free to perform scientific experiments- as a sparrow is free to use its beak as a food gathering tool. A Christian scientist is also free to form accurate or faulty hypotheses based on his/her own observation, and be “proved wrong”- just as a sparrow with an ill-suited beak shape for gathering a food source will be selected against for survival to reproduce, and when both the sparrow and human die, it is part of God’s plan. A Christian scientist knows this- that all things are from, through, and to God, but his/her main goal is not to further science, but it is to glorify God!!!

O: “I’ll go with that. As Dawkins has said, I’d love to hear Bach’s oratorio Evolution! Mind you, as above, one doesn’t have to believe in loving gods and their ilk for the crab nebula or bat sonar to make one’s spirit soar. And science tells us more about these things than faith ever can.”

R: Marvelous! Now we've penetrated the atmosphere and the surface of the matter, but we're still digging around in the crust. Like we before agreed , its common for all humans to have moving spiritual experiences. One can also agree with Oolon, in that scientific exploration into these matters is useful for practical science- i.e. beneficial to humans for practical application and manipulation. But my friend does assume that as far as pure science goes
( acquiring scientific knowledge for the sake of knowledge) Thaaaaaatttt………..

(Uno)- Scientific inquiry is an ends in itself. It is fed by those noble rational beings contributing to it, and its growth and preservation in the minds and hearts of succeeding generations is its goal in being taught, but also it’s self sustainment in the mind of an individual is proliferated by the fact that it is the avenue of self-enlightenment to acquire the best perception of the advent of reality- past present and future. Or at least compared to just having faith. (Bet you won’t find it that detailed in a textbook-its too self analytical)

(Dos)- Having faith- (an ambiguous term), puts constraints and limits on ones perception, encouraging misconceptions of “reality” in order to preserve itself in the minds and hearts of succeeding gullible generations and to further the practice of it’s dogmatic traditions arising from older misconceptions held by primitive societies. (Is that about what you assumed, Oolon ?)
This assumption does not do us justice. Look here:
2 Samuel 22:31
"As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the Lord is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in him.”

God’s way is perfect, it is just our perception that is off. Saying that sub-optimal designs are not perfect is blaspheming God. However, if one is defining “perfect” as a measure of its contribution to reproductive success only, then sure, some structures that were once useful down the line are less useful now. But that takes none of the emphasis out of that verse. Christian science can be just as yielding as current science, but of course moral issues would take precedence over scientific advances. It slows down some areas of science and speeds up others, but I think the long term effects will be much better than if science combined with greed are left on their own.

Reldas of Melchezidec

R: “It is counter productive to teach the science of creationism(i.e. all emphasis and glory in the scientific method be given to God, from whom all understanding flows) to children with no faith in God”

O: “I hope you actually mean things like ‘biology’, for there is no science in creationism.
Captioned part: O: Huh?”

R: You totally missed the donkeys butt that time. Probably didn’t help when I spun you around a lot with my trying to put difficult spiritual concepts into mere words. I don’t think it would be very feasible to put evolution and natural observation in terms that would glorify The Lord. As far as science in creationism, just how far back do you think the scientific method goes? Evidently not very far. This might be another point of contention among us, that I believe humans- some more than others- have always been prone to observe a particular aspect of nature, label it, and try to predict its behavior based on observed patterns. How do you think cultivation of plants and animals came about? In fact, we would even share our discoveries and experimental finds with our tribe, and get their feedback and help. The scientific method is the natural way for humans to not only find different practical uses of a thing, but also to satiate their yearning for knowledge beyond the sensual. Granted, we(the body of Christ) don’t need science, or even to be conscious to have communion with the Yaveh of Genesis 2. We are tested in every thought and action by Yaveh- according to our current inherent natures. However, Elohim is another matter- the matter we are currently discussing. So in respect to Elohim, or the impersonal aspect of the creator/creation of the universe and life described in Genesis 1, science has been widely used to look at the world around us- throughout the history of man- if not as well defined as today. Behold! . The bible even encourages scientific observation- directly as well as indirectly!! Here is a specific example of learning knowledge from authority.

1 Thessalonians 5
20do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21Test everything. Hold on to the good. 22Avoid every kind of evil.
(R: One can’t believe that this verse is taken out of context. Test everything means TEST EVERYTHING. Be skeptical, but don’t necessarily condemn. If one wisely observes and tests everything, one can grow spiritually in every situation, as God brings about good in all things. Therefore, anything must be tested against You might say: “But the bible says that ALL things are from, through, and to God, and it also says ‘do not test The Lord your God’, so how then can we test everything? Well, these are two different meanings for the word “test”. This sort of thing is responsible for most supposed biblical contradictions. The one meaning refers to a situation in which people will tell you things as fact, or someone will give you an account or an interpretation of an event, and you must compare and contrast this to what you have established as good, practical, wise, or the truth. Hold on to what is good: like filtering out gold from a substrate. This teaches us to be skeptical about the “truth” of humans, even fellow Christians, not the things of God- as pertaining his will. The bible says not to worry about what we are going eat, as God feeds the sparrows of the field- so how much more you! Obviously, the sparrows partake in the same struggle for resources as all other life. Yet the passage refers to this process as an active thing on the part of God- not passive as applies to the actions of humans. Every atom in this universe is part of the Lord’s plan, even those atoms making up vestigial structures in animals. I test the bible against the natural world, which I know to be part of God’s plan, and find that they are greatly harmonious. It is our interpretations of it that fall short of the natural revelation. So we can see that we are to interact with our environment to get food, not just sit there and get force fed with an invisible teat. By the sparrow analogy and the 1 Thess. Verse, the bible teaches us to interact in our environment, not divorce ourselves from it, and to test every thing that others tell us, and to hold on to the good.
The other contextual meaning of the word “test” used in “do not test the Lord your God” constitutes the basis and reasoning behind most of non-theistic sentiment. Us insolent pieces of clay, sorry got a little carried away, us humans openly challenge God’s plan when we cut deals, demand signs, and maintain illusory ideals of “the way things should be” with god. I want to dismantle that illusion right away. By someone saying that “I don’t believe in God because of the presence of sub-optimal designs” you are testing God against your own ego- in effect setting yourself up as God, by believing in your own perceptions of what is “perfect”. Who cares if you don’t like the Thbttt theology of some who take on “Christ” as part of their name. You can still have a relationship with Yaveh through Christ -who became wisdom for us- it is universal, cross cultural, and the yolk is easy. It is not a system of a whole bunch of do’s and don’ts that one has to constantly worry oneself over, but only the two commandments. (Mat 38:40) Should you care about the opinions of humans- or those of God? The sub-optimal designs are part of God’s plan and one knows because the bible tells one so, indirectly in some cases. But one is not here to convince you of that: I know you might have heard it all before. One only wants to clarify that the Christian bible gives a basis for scientific inquirery, as well as guidelines for carrying it out( by keeping the golden 2 commandments) And that Christians who learn the tool of science can perform scientific experiments as well as any scientist, in fact that’s the way it had previously been before Darwin, but some silly misinterpretations and egoistic exchanges put a gulf between them.

O: “Why is faith necessary? Can we not appreciate things, appreciate them even better, when we see them for what they really are? Is there no ‘glory in this view of life’?”

R: The answer is: Why not give to God what is God’s?! Obviously direct faith in God is not necessary to survive and gain worldly knowledge, but yes, I certainly appreciate life, the universe, and everything indescribably more now that I realize it is from, through, and to God. So we don’t agree on this point- one doesn’t mind. One doesn’t have to be right, only God is right. You have much more riding on who is right than I do. One only desires, in this occasion, that the choice be given to youngsters and other information deficient people to find out for themselves where the glory lies.

O: “The concept of chaos is to do with physics and broad patterns in the natural world. Linked to it are concepts of complexity, self-organization etc. While these have their place in biology, it sounds like (correct me if I’m wrong) you think that’s all there is to evolution... and hence back to the old creationist claims about ‘random evolution’, evolution being a theory of chance etc.”

R: I can't make myself agree to a restricted view of "chaos"("to be explained later) Oolon(although I can try to see it from yur specs ) one must agree that our observations of life on chemical and physical levels are fundamental to our "understanding" of the relatively visible process that biology observes- as pertaining to evolutionary analysis. Lets define chaos by empirical observation and analogy!!! Take the process by which proteins are synthesized. I will bubba-ize it and pray that both my memory and the actual validity of the scientific description given to me are both meet: the setting is the nucleus of a eukarotic cell. We can visualize a single strand of DNA innocently strolling along when it is "randomly" encountered by mRNA polymerace( on a TATA box)(promoter). Lets all observe that the nucleus has a semi-permeable membrane allowing some chemicals to pass through, but disses others. A myriad of other enzymes and other proteins are floating around- some also react with the strand, and juuuuuuusssssstttt the riiiiiiiiiggggght combinations of "random" chemical bonding and repelling "forces" causes the splitting between the coding and noncoding strands, while the mRNA grabs the codons and makes for ribosome in the cytoplasm. Whether it makes a bee-line straight through the nuclear membrane to a ribosome, or it diffuses out of the nucleus because of concentration gradients of mrna and is attracted to ribosomal stuff- I'm not sure.
Lets analogize this to subject Bob, who lives in a house full of bowling balls, cats, dust, bowling ball- producing- mucous -feeding bacteria, and other common essentials. So Bob meanders around his house, bumping into walls and such when he trips over a bowling ball, emitting an unattractive sound and landing on the tail of a cat. The cat freaks and zips around the house, sending lots of cat hair into the atmosphere. Bob recovers and resumes his important task of bumping into stuff, when he inhales a portion of airborne hair and sneezes violently. The bbpmf bacteria are smothered with nose nummies, spurring them to grow and produce another bowling ball, which will inevitably be tripped over. Ok, enough with that! What I had hoped to instill by that visual hodge podge was a feeling of the "chaos" element involved inside a cell. Atoms go from high energies to lower and then back to high. We all noticed earlier that membranes act as barriers to some things and not to others. This is an essential structure to life in that it allows cells to harness chaos. That is partially why I've been doing "this" to certain "ambiguous" terms, (not to annoy you); the other reason will bring around my main "point" later. One observes that a cell is like a little self-contained unit of chaos. It moves and interacts by harnessing the energy of the complex matrix inside of it, as the particles "try" to move to less energetic states, subsequently causing others to move to higher ones. However, the little world of chaos contained in a cell is highly structured compared to an open vial where chemicals react freely with each other and whatever diffuses into them. For this reason, I say that chaos plays an important role in the theory of evolution for we find that separating a little piece of the chaotic universe from itself provides for amazing uses of its energy- enough for life anyway. Therefore, a cellular membrane is, from the perspective of life, the anti-chaos, and is the very definition of order, complexity, and self-organization. I’m not really disagreeing with much of what you’ve asserted about science yet, just synthesizing an ethos for my point as I go along!

O: "In case you don’t know, with evolution there are two factors. One is mutations, which are indeed random."

R: I am well versed in the ways of mutations and selective pressures. Mutations are random- from your perspective anyway. Since the cell is a self contained unit of “ordered chaos”(I hope we established this- at least for the sake of argument), any sort of random action of genetic material - i.e. insertion, deletion, addition, etc. is going to be harbored by the cell. Even the outside radiation that breaks up genetic material is accounted for and even essential for life to evolve. In fact, the whole system "encourages" mutations by providing the materials for it- even the right staging material to recombine DNA after it is broken up. If the very existence of the cell and its theorized evolution suggests to us that “random” mutations are a common phenomenon among all DNA/RNA systems from the first cells until now, one is led to believe that mutations are as ordered as well…as ordered as any purpose performed by a lipid bi-layer membrane! The cell contains a bunch of genetic elements thrown in together that prostitute themselves to passing radiation, and when the prodigal gene returns to the welcoming arms of it's family chromosome, it has a child cradled in its arms . Therefore, mutations are provided for, essential, and ordered in respect to the cells. The whole matrix is geared that way, and you could argue that that had to be one of the first things to evolve, in that none of the complexity we see in life today could have arisen without a system that harbors "chaos" as well as the current life does- granted that cells got better and better at it as it was apparently selected for… Are mutations truly random by your definition(I'm sure you'll tell me your definition) if they are “caused” by the specifically ordered presence and arrangement of chemicals in a cell? Would similar mutations happen to a random protein floating around in space or in pure water? Wouldn't a piece of DNA floating around outside the cell be rendered into its elements relatively quickly- due to its complex structure and the destructive hand of external radiation? I pray that we can agree thus far, but I'm happy to be "corrected" when I try to use my own understanding to reason with anyone!

O: The other is natural selection, which is the diametric opposite of randomness.

R: Good good good- within the physical parameters of the “known” universe, there are recurrent themes that life “uses” to fill a niche, given the initial chaos-harnessing-mutation-harboring system we all have. Homology between marsupial moles and placental moles demonstrates this. This phenomena suggests that selection isn’t random. The word “random” is a monster. Its denotation includes: a process, action, phenomenon, ect in which there is little or no observable pattern in nature. The connotations allow the word to be meant as an insult, but for our purposes it is used by infidels to suggest the opposite of intelligent design- both its presence and the lack thereof in the case of selection. Both the word “random” and the phrase “intelligent design” are ambiguous, and the meanings are carried along by something that one can describe as communally consensual connotation, or my favorite-mass illusion in some cases. Explained in more detail earlier on. Back to selection… lets see what characteristics contribute to the nonrandomness (almost said randomality) of the phenomena. There is that observable pattern that only those individuals that are best suited to outcompete for resources survive in their particular environment to reproduce. Genetic drift and artificial selection are some exceptions. So the availability of resources determines that selection is not random, eh? If space, shelter, food, and mates were all plentiful, would there be selection? This is just a side question to make you think. I’m curious about such things, but again I realize that all things are from, through, and to God. We’ll discuss natural selection later, I promise!

O: “It is selection that is responsible for organized complexity, by only keeping, at each generation, what works already in the niche, and any improvements that mutations throw up. It operates like a ratchet, building on what’s gone before, not starting from scratch each time.”

R: Boy, Oolon says it in allot less words than I could, and did. I suppose that by labeling it “natural selection” and noticing that it turns out a plethora of complex life systems and kills them off just as fast gets us somewhere. Does it fulfill the requirements of science- does it observe natural phenomena, and try to understand predictable patterns in it? Yes, mostly…. This way of perceiving natural phenomena allows us to observe and predict some patterns in it. For instance, if we found an extremely long beaked humming bird, we would predict to find an extremely deep flower in the area as well. However, does this mean we understand it, because we can observe, label, and predict? Christian scientists perform all the tasks any other can, if only for a different reason. Isn’t that the heart of science? Understanding a phenomenon in nature/creation? Non Christian scientists seem to take that question for granted. Christian Scientists already know that they cannot possibly fathom God’s plan in this lifetime, but instead use science to revel in God’s creation. You assume that just because we know that God created everything and from him comes true wisdom, that we think it unnecessary to study creation. A bird must peck to uncover seeds, yes? Tell me, oh infidels, does this system of scientific observation make you feel that you understand life, the universe, and everything, just by observing, labeling, and predicting? This is a rhetorical question, because even though many of you will claim to be non-biased vectors of reason, being led to your conclusions about reality only by the empirical observation of those things testable in nature, some of you demonstrate that you feel a certain way regardless of “proof”, by the way you’d rather lead your lives- not by any sort of communicable ethos(unless that ethos is “I do what whatever seems good or beneficial for me&#8221 . I try not to generalize, for it is not I who knows what lurks deep in the hearts of men, or even judges that self-centered science is “wrong”-even though it seems to be a prime example of the ego setting itself up as God. But claims of non-bias are illusory. Heh. Sorry to deviate- for those of you who don’t help maintain that particular illusion.

O: “Chance is therefore only tangentially involved.”

R: Yeah, I suppose so. I mean, it is observable that whenever God, or if you prefer, chance leads to uneven recombination, duplicating essential genes, and so allowing the creature to live if one of the essential duplicates were mutated into something else (or at least that’s how its currently explained). After that, “selection” can have a hay-day with those altered sequences. Right, so then because you can predict that “life…will find a way” proved by the fact that it has survived through every planetary disaster thus far, and that resources are limited and are even roughly measurable in certain instances, then you can say that chance is only tangentially involved. We can argue this later.

O: “Natural selection is a very well studied phenomenon; it has little to do with chance or chaos (or at least it is a major factor and is not itself chaotic); and it is very far from being “only a rudimentary explanation” for life. It does explain masses about life, in exquisite detail. And it bases the explanations on empirical data, not mysticism.”

R: Gravy, here’s one way of looking at it in respect to the evolution of multicellular organisms: a cell- that is the basic unit of life, works by separating a little piece of chaos from itself, and so selective pressures on compilations of these individual units, called higher life forms, “cause” these forms with the best synergy of individual units, or the meshing of the individual units of chaos into one single unit of life(plasmodesmata, coelem, vascular system, ect. support this trend) or communal macro mimicry of self, to survive on to copy the whole compilation. Our skin is equivalent to a lipid bilayer, separating a little piece of the universe from itself on a massive scale, our blood and extracellular fluids are like cytoplasm, providing a stageing area for nutrient transport as well a hormones and gene expression. Those multicellular organisms whose cells cooperate best, via their current individual genetic expressions- incurring a phenotype, to maintain homeostasis in a particular environment; these will normally be favored over those that don’t. For example: organisms in a particular environment whose cells secrete HCl into the stomach cavity are gonna be favored over those that make a weaker acid or just enzymes. Lets call it cellergy.  Sorry, I oversimplified when I said that natural selection was a rudimentary explanation. My science, as you can see, could use a little work, but one only tries to put things under a new light- a different perspective. However, I don’t want you to think that is my main point in argument. Explaining how something came about often overlooks why. The why is just assumed: “it just does”, or “its just a chemical phenomenon”.
2 Samuel 22:31
"As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the Lord is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in him.

Job 26:7
He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.
(R: Job rocks!!! Those many scriptures referring to “the four corners of the earth” seem to refer to “across the whole earth” rather than specifically to a square flat one. On a x/y axis there are 4 equidistant points on the surface. This scripture, however, is not so confusing. &#61514

Genesis 1:24
And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.
(R: Ahem… Heres an interesting thing… I wonder where people got the idea that God created stuff instantly, like El pointed a finger and thbttt(fart noise)! Life just popped into being fully functional yippee. Hmmmmm.. I wonder by what process the “land” would be bringing forth life…? I’d have to check the Hebrew for verification, but I’m pretty sure that it is purposefully written that way.)

Exodus 23
29 But I will not drive them out in a single year, because the land would become desolate and the wild animals too numerous for you.
(R: Just a small example- the author was inspired to write this because people tended to kill off the dangerous predators, as well as hunt game and steal their grazing land.. By wiping out all human influence all of a sudden, this might cause a sharp rise in non-predatory animals, and subsequently predators will increase dramatically as well.)

Leviticus 25:7
as well as for your livestock and the wild animals in your land. Whatever the land produces may be eaten
( R: There’s that same theme- whatever the land produces. It’s quite common in the bible)

1 Kings 4
32 He spoke three thousand proverbs and his songs numbered a thousand and five. 33 He described plant life, from the cedar of Lebanon to the hyssop that grows out of walls. He also taught about animals and birds, reptiles and fish. 34 Men of all nations came to listen to Solomon's wisdom, sent by all the kings of the world, who had heard of his wisdom.
(R Solomon is muy cool, a naturalist after my own heart. The bible considers Solomon a wise person, and he was a scientist and philosopher among other things)
Job 12
7 "But ask the animals, and they will teach you,
or the birds of the air, and they will tell you;
8 or speak to the earth, and it will teach you,
or let the fish of the sea inform you.
9 Which of all these does not know
that the hand of the LORD has done this?
10 In his hand is the life of every creature
and the breath of all mankind.
(R: Yeah, ask em’. Amen Brotha!)

Ecclesiastes 3
18 I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath [1] ; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless.
(R: Whoopee!!! Obviously our society has developed some considerable charms in respect to the animals, but hey, we are animals! We are the same in every aspect of the word as it applies to all life- except of course that humans were created in God’s Image(Genesis 1:27) That’s another long rant though. It’s the only thing different mentioned in genesis about the creation of things. We both die in the end, and both require the same things for life. We all have the same breath(spirit) that is associated with life. Yet people try to find meaning in things, they try to differentiate themselves and justify their existence by it. We didn’t need modern science to tell us that we are animals, the bible provides that info.)

Isaiah 43
19 See, I am doing a new thing!
Now it springs up; do you not perceive it?
I am making a way in the desert
and streams in the wasteland.
20 The wild animals honor me,
the jackals and the owls,
because I provide water in the desert
and streams in the wasteland,
(R: Don’t see much jackals bowing their heads or owls making sacrifices. They mostly eat each other and reproduce. Nature as it is honors God in its way. So also there is a natural way for animals with the image of God to honor him. See bible for details)

Romans 1
19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
(R: Here the word reminds us that if you were born with enough sensory perception to experience the world around you, then you have no excuse for your current hardened state besides “I don’t wanna Glorify God”. Paul speaks the truth!)

Romans 8
19The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that[1] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
(R: Hope!- heres an insight to the future! A universe where life is not subject to entropy! Almost unfathomable to us. Creation frustration…heh, this doesn’t portray a thbtt view to me- and it’s all in the plan- that things must decay(change into energy or less ordered forms)- nucleus, molecules, compounds, polymers, DNA, Cells, tissues, organs, organisms, biscuits, … stars, galaxies, quasars,…and the universe are no exceptions. Christians look forward to this happy new creation without frustration. I show you this so that you can better understand us.)

Psalm 74
13 It was you who split open the sea by your power;
you broke the heads of the monster in the waters.
14 It was you who crushed the heads of Leviathan
and gave him as food to the creatures of the desert.
15 It was you who opened up springs and streams;
you dried up the ever flowing rivers.
(R: Goddidit! Land formation, food chain, extinction, erosion, water tables, you name it!)

Proverbs 30
24 "Four things on earth are small,
yet they are extremely wise:
25 Ants are creatures of little strength,
yet they store up their food in the summer;
26 coneys [4] are creatures of little power,
yet they make their home in the crags;
27 locusts have no king,
yet they advance together in ranks;
28 a lizard can be caught with the hand,
yet it is found in kings' palaces.
(R: Life filling a niche, whoda thought?

Psalm 34
10 The lions may grow weak and hungry,
but those who seek the LORD lack no good thing.
11 Come, my children, listen to me;
I will teach you the fear of the LORD .
(R: Let the little children come&#8230

Acts 17
28'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'
29"Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone--an image made by man's design and skill. 30In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.

The factor that spurs most scientific “advances” today is money. Look at all the pharmaceutical firms and genetic manipulation companies that are springing up and grabbing up patens on drugs and gene sequences. Can you imagine a future where a person has to tithe a certain amount of each pay check to whatever firm holds the paten on their altered genes? It is a form of slavery! Do you think that human compassion is inherent? Wrong!!! You may enjoy the benefits of a society based on Christian ideals now and so take it for granted, but how long do you think the good life will last when these statutes are replaced by “scientific enlightenment” with no base or anchor in the true reason behind all the good actions. We can have goooood times arguing this in its own post.
I tell you that there are actually very few actual Christians,- and even fewer that are actually living up to their name and really try to be Christ-like. Most people believe in some sort of theism because their parents did and generally don’t invade each others freedoms, partly because of the discouragement of the law. I’ll save that for a different post.
Why does everyone think thbtt when they think of the bible’s description of creation? Why even assume that theistic evolution is necessarily a passive form of creation, just because we can’t really understand God’s “plan” in all this. Look around you at all we have, Christians have a lot to be thankful for. Scriptures in the Books of Moses and the prophets- on the surface, seem to portray God as a white bearded man in the clouds (with a penis)- but such is not entirely true. If this image is what you fear will be instilled into the minds of tomorrow, then I assure you upon my very existence that this will not happen- not to a rational, knowledge thirsty mind acquiring an extensive knowledge of scripture. Perhaps some will discard them as writings of mere primitive goatherders.(They most certainly will if you teach them only a few scriptures that seem to portray it that way slant it to your bias) Maybe some of the ethics will stick, and you will have scientist with a semi-virtuous disposition. Maybe a few will come to a personal revelation about life, and be able to see through illusions and be creative and insightful, adding a flavor to science. Perhaps even a fraction will find completion in Christ, and will take hold of that which first took hold of them, and their thirst for research will be a personal holy quest to glorify God, not to gain respect from others, fame, honor, and of course money. For in the body of Christ, each has a certain task according to their specific gift- like a living creature. There are eyes, ears, feet, hearts, bones, mouths, and even brains, which is the category that Christian scientists, philosophers, and theologists fall into. Many of the Christians that you find yourself argueing with are actually hearts, mouths, blood, and skin, ect.- all trying to be the mind. This makes for a rather un-synergetic creature, that is currently being selected against by the modern scientific world. However, this species will never be extinct(hold off your disappointment) because though some regions of the body become apathetic, others vestigial, and still others are prone to infection or slough off, in times of stimuli and persecution it’s phenotype is purged clean by selective pressures, and it comes together stronger than any amount of cellergy could induce.
However, by just portraying one empirical view of the universe to children, they will most certainly think that Christians like me are foolish and stupid and will smirk and say " out with the troll, in with the neo" and then will carry on with their “scientifically enlightened” paths. A person who seeks wisdom is not foolish- though one may be a little ignorant to science and labels and worldly knowledge. Isn’t creative thought and varied goals an important aspect of science- always trekking down new avenues and self-correcting. For science to evolve we must build on what we already have, yes, but we must also incorporate whatever changes mutations throw up. In that respect, Christian science( science employed by Christians as a life sacrifice to God) is conducive to the evolution of human knowledge as a whole.
Oh the illusions and meandering of humanity, who squirm under the testing eye of God, as animals under a scalding sun! We rest in the shade of our own illusions. But how can one see ones’ shadow, when one is standing in a shadow?
I’ll help.



Peace and Grace,
Reldas

Quetzal

Thanks Reldas,

I appreciate your efforts. Unfortunately, I think you may have missed the point of the exercise. I was looking for a short syllabus that could be used to present the "best evidence" for special creation - said syllabus to be contrasted with the evidence for neo-Darwinian synthesis.

Anyway, thanks for your help and thought.

Reldas of Melchezidec

Greetings,
I'll admit I'm a little disapointed- not knowing who missed more of who's point...
Forgive my judgement, but it does seem that your offer to creationists was very discriminatory. You began the rules of engagement with a challenge to answer a question: Was it created or evolved. My answer did't fall into your acceptable genre, apparently, as it did not fit your preconceptions on the matter. Is that very scientific? I suppose it is not entirely your fault as the guidelines were probably dictated to you as such, but I looked and looked and looked in the bible but could not find a contrast between the two views- save the one in Genesis that seems to get the order of creation wrong relative to scientific theory. However, there are some rather good apologetics on that as well. Is that what you wanted? The Genesis creation set head to head with the modern synthesis? I'll compose a short(relative to my last posts)list compareing the two if that is what you wish. Did you even read that monster i wrote! How did it impact your views of Christians and the bible? Do you better understand us because of my words? I wish I could show you how I live them.
Peace and(hope it isn't too late for change)Grace
Reldas