|
|
Posted: 05/16/2007
EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
Worldview Stories in Science Class
By Chuck Edwards
A student recently emailed with the following question:
“Isn’t it true that Darwin admitted before he died that he couldn't explain the complexity of the human eye?”
Here is my answer:
Darwin did say that the eye gave him a problem based on his theory of gradual evolution, but he did not say it at the end of his life. He wrote it in his book, On the Origin of Species, published in 1859. Darwin mentioned the eye by way of illustrating how an organ this complex "could" have evolved. But then, instead of providing a scientific explanation, showing actual evidence from the fossil record for example, Darwin proceeds to tell a highly imaginative story, stringing together several "intermediate" stages to explain how the process from "simple" light sensitive spots to "complex" eyes may have transpired.
As it turns out, Darwin was totally ignorant of the inner workings of the cell and the actual chemical pathways required for sight. For images to be registered in the brain, it takes a complex arrangement of photo-chemical receptors, nerve cells, electrical signals to and within the brain, muscles, tear ducts, skeletal structures, not to mention the absurdly complicated arrangement of molecules which make up the eye itself.
For example, the retina is a very thin and complex tissue lining the back of the eye. According to Dr. Geoffrey Simmons, the retina contains 7 million cone cells for color assessment, 125 million rod cells for adaptation to the dark, and 1.2 million nerve cells that collect billions of bits of information![i] Put simply, the entire arrangement has to work or it doesn't work!
The bottom line is this: Darwin's explanation was totally inadequate to explain the origin of sight. In fact, after 150 years of research, today's evolutionary scientists have not produced any better explanation. While we observe various kinds of eyes throughout the animal kingdom today, there is no clear fossil evidence, nor any other evidence, supporting Darwin's story of gradual, step-by-step, evolution from simple to complex.
In fact, there are no natural processes (biological, chemical, or mechanical) that can produce coordinated, specific instructions and build complex biological mechanisms to do what a living organism does to live, survive, and reproduce. It takes an Intelligent Creator to produce that level of complexity.
While talking recently with a self-described skeptic, I simplified our discussion by pointing out that there are only two explanations for the origin of life. In a cause and effect universe, the effect (life) must have an adequate cause. Either life came from inanimate matter (from non-living molecules), or life came from some pre-existing life. The first theory assumes matter is all that exists; the second assumes that God also exists.
The question is: can we get life from non-life? Every experiment conducted since Pasteur in the mid 1800's affirms that life does NOT come from non-living stuff. Non-living molecules are not a sufficient cause for producing a living organism. Therefore, the only other explanation must be true: life came from a pre-existing, living God.
If there are clear scientific reasons not supporting the theory of naturalistic evolution, than it seems only fair to present this evidence to students in science class. Yet a current debate is raging over allowing scientific observations that counter evolution into the classroom and whether “intelligent design” is a viable alternative to naturalistic evolution.
Current scientific investigations are undermining evolutionary theory at its core, and evolutionists are fighting back with all they’ve got to maintain their absolute control over what is taught in school. This tells me that more than science is going on here. Evolution is being revealed as not just a scientific paradigm, but a religiously held belief in naturalism.
It’s time to be honest with the evidence and with the fact that only one worldview is currently being allowed in class. Maybe science teachers should use the eye as an example for teaching students to see through the “just so” story of Darwin’s naturalism to the more logical explanation for an Intelligent Designer. In that way, students will no longer be indoctrinated in only one worldview, but will be taught to think in terms of evaluating the available evidence to the best conclusion. Isn’t that what science education is all about?
Note: This article originally appeared June, 2005 in Summit Ministries' Truth and Consequences, a monthly e-commentary (http://summit.org/resource/tc/). For more about Summit Ministries' unique worldview training conferences for students and adults, go to http://summit.org.
Recommended books:
What Darwin Didn’t Know, Geoffrey Simmons, M.D.
Darwin’s Black Box, Michael Behe, Ph.D.
Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.
[i] What Darwin Didn’t Know, Geoffrey Simmons (Harvest House: Eugene, OR: 2004), p. 114.
Distributed by www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com
Read and post feedback
Disclaimer: Worldview Weekend, Christian Worldview Network and its columnists do not necessarily endorse or agree with every opinion expressed in every article posted on this site. We do however, encourage a healthy and friendly debate on the issues of our day. Whether you agree or disagree, we encourage you to post your feedback by using the feedback button.
2346 Views
Printer Friendly Version |
E-mail this article to a friend |
Return to home
|
Re: EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 07/21/07 07:15:43 AM |
Age 45, AR |
Historically, imputation is no enemy to justice, law or ethics. Jurisprudence has always recognized repondeat superior or master/servant imputation. We live in a representative republic, we are governed by representatives whose decisions and actions are imputed to us. Attorneys represent their clients. You think this is unfair? Although I am sure this is not what you intended God is a strange supernatural dictator revealed in the Bible which is not a contract, but a covenant document. God sends his son to die for undeserving sinners. This is strange. He is over nature, supernatural. He is authoritative, he dictates. So, I can accept your descriptions. As for the price paid by Jesus, you make a category error. The quantity of his payment was 3 days in the grave, the quality of his payment, as the commercial says, was priceless. God has done for man what man could not do for himself. If he does not rise, the price is not paid. What is being purchased is eternal salvation. Jesus, like Adam, is a federal head. His work is imputed to his people. We partake in and enjoy that which he has purchased. For those who are not "in" Jesus, the price is unpaid and the consequences are eternal. What makes you sick and what changes your mind is irrelevant, you are slipping again into the warm protective embrace of subjectivism. I thought you wanted to discuss objective truths? Hell is no more injust than any sentence passed by any fair judge in any fair court in the world. Since you have rejected God and his free/bona fide offer of salvation against your better knowledge, I understand why you fear hell. My wish for you would be that you would repent and accept by faith what God freely offers. But, if you persist in unbelief, you have a problem. How do you objectify your rejection of hell without rejecting all notions of justice? If God is, and man has rebelled against him, hell makes rational, logical, legal, and ethical sense. And you are just a criminal who hates the cops.
Click here to reply to this post
|
- Re: Re: EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 07/24/07 11:55:31 PM | | Age 37, NY |
Now the price is paid because he came back from the dead? I thought it was the sacrifice of death that paid the price? Either way it all seems so unnecessary as way to provide the opportunity of salvation for us humans. Why all the pomp and circumstance? It all seems to close to the animal sacrifices that were very popular back in those days to be believable as the actions of the creator of the universe. Back to Adam. As I understand it, his sin was that he ate an apple that he was told not to. Is this small disobedience amount to a total rejection of God that requires death and perhaps eternity in hell as punishment? Why such a harsh punishment? Is it not worth questioning? Clearly Adam believed and trusted in God because they had a one on one relationship--couldn't God just accept Adam’s apology and be done with it? Today, if one steals an apple they are not put to death or even sentenced to life in prison. Obviously, if this heaven/hell thing is all true, my opinions mean nothing--but eternity in hell for even a total rejection of god is a barbaric punishment that does not fit the crime. Why does God need us to comply? I question the nature of such a God that requires these things of us but more so by the punishment if we don't oblige. He is basically commanding that we fall on our knees and worship him and if we don't, we will be tortured forever. He's a dictator with a fragile ego. Clearly this whole idea is made up.
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: Re: EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 07/26/07 01:55:11 PM | | Age 45, AR |
Your argument does not lead to the conclusion "clearly the whole thing is made up." Your argument leads to the conclusion, "this is unacceptable to me". And, your argument is hypocritical. You want to impose your values on God (He is unjust, overpunishes, is an egomaniac, is barbaric). And your argument reduces to the unacceptability of God imposing His values on you. But you get to impose your values on God. It is a childlike argument. In essence, you are just whining. In sin, man seeks God's death. Man wants everything God has. To take this from God, God would have to cease to exist. You seek to murder God. When man seeks to murder man, the ultimate penalty is justified, death. This penalty is infinitely more justified when man seeks the death of God. You deserve death at God's hand, as do I. Why cannot God just wink and forgive? Because He is just and the punishment must meet the crime. The sacrificial system was typological. It did not propitiate, it pointed to the one who would propitiate. Man commits the crime, man must pay the price. Man cannot pay the price, only God can pay the price. Both requirements are met in the life and death of Jesus. There is nothing unreasonable about the Christian message. The problem with the Christian message is that it is unacceptable. But you really do know that after all. This is why you complain about God being a dictator. Of course he is a dictator, He is God. This, because of your sin, is unacceptable to you. This world is not big enough for both God and you. One of you has to go. You cannot touch God. So, you do the next best thing, your deny and simultaneously, whine, about His existence. He demands submission and worship. You deny Him what He is due. He is gracious to you, He gives you life, health, goodness and the bona fide offer of salvation despite your hostility. Yet, you persist in your rebellion. The problem is not God, you are the problem. You are the one who is unreasonable and unjust.
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: Re: Re: EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 07/27/07 11:46:54 AM | | Age 37, NY |
If your god exists, attempting to kill him is tantamount to throwing a hand full of grass at a cow from 100 yards away. If it were as impossible to kill a man as it is to kill God, any attempt at killing a man would hardly merit the harsh punishment that it now has. But either way, I'm against the death penalty... Since our discussions began several months ago, I've given you arguments as to why the Bible is clearly made up and as to why it is unfair and/or unacceptable to me. I can't possible reiterate with each new post. But If what you believe is true, then yes I'm whining. Because the god who made me, made me in such a way, that through reason, I have concluded that he is unfair. I can't help that I think that. Would God want me to be dishonest and bow to him anyway? Wouldn't he know that I being disingenuous? Reason tells me that a god who created the universe and who is both omniscient and omnipotent would not need, desire, or require being worshipped in the way that the Christian Bible asks of us. This is one of many reasons why I believe that it is both unacceptable and made up. But again, if true, I'm not imposing my values on him, I'm merely observing (through eyes that he gave me) that he is an egomaniacal dictator.
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 07/27/07 11:11:54 PM | | Age 45, AR |
First of all, he isn't "my" God. He is God. That makes him your God also, whether you like it or not. And yes, your efforts to "kill" him are futile. Nevertheless, your attempts are evil. And, in God's universe, evil must be judged appropriately. As for your arguments, I have not seen much argument from you. You whine and complain and go on and on about how you do not like God, Christians and the Bible. But, I have seen very, very little intellectual substance from you. And not for want of trying. I have repeatedly asked questions which you ignore. I have asked for an epistemology. You refuse to respond. I have pointed out that you are not arguing, you are retreating into subjectivism, emotionalism, making straw man arguments, and engaging in irrelevant, self-absorbed trivia going on and on about what is and is not acceptable to you. I have decimated your atheism by demonstrating that your materialism destroys knowledge and universals. This has not fazed you. I have pointed out that you are strangely unaffected by the fact that that your worldview destroys the very possibility of truth and knowledge. You did not care. You are single mindedly fixated on justifying your rejection of God and you do not care how foolish your unbelief makes you. You have not made any reasoned arguments against theism or Christianity, you have just told me what passes muster with you. You have not made any arguments demonstrating that the Bible is made up or that God is unfair. You have only told me that you believe the Bible is made up and that God is unfair. Arguments presuppose truth. Winning arguments conform to the truth. Yet, in rejecting God, you destroy the very possibility of truth. You have proven nothing. You have only made meaningless noise. If you want to argue, give me a Godless epistemology. Show me the pathway from belief to knowledge which does not depend on God and revelation. You have to establish a foundation for truth before you can claim that your conclusions are true. Even in your most recent response, I cannot find an argument. You are only making ungrounded assertions. E.g., an omniscient, omnipotent God does not need to be worshipped. What does this even mean? God needs nothing. However, man, including you, needs to worship the God upon whom we depend. Hell does not exist because we refuse the worship which God needs, hell exists because evil exists. So, once again, straw man. Lets put you to the test. If you really want to engage in a reasoned argument with a Christian, lets start with your notion of fairness. Explain to me the origins of fairness in a Godless universe. This is, afterall, the foundation of your objection. Lets see if it holds water.
Click here to reply to this post
- EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 07/30/07 03:11:45 PM | | Age 37, NY |
But we've been back and forth on this presupposition nonsense many times. I've always contended that as humans, we are in the same boat as to our claims about Truth. The Bible is an arbitrary man made (man made because it is written by men) "fixed point" from which you base your claims to truth and knowledge, right and wrong etc. I could just as easily manufacture one or claim to have discovered one carved on a stone in the Australian outback. The point is, these things merely create the appearance of truth within its own context. It is a belief on faith that it is not man made and that it is Truth, it is not knowledge. I've never claimed to have all the answers to the well worn problems of philosophy. I'm constantly reevaluating the things we think we know. I can't possibly give you a godless epistemology because I cant possible know if a god exists or not. I can give you many theories as philosophers have been doing forever but we can't know for sure if any are correct because of the limitations of our senses. You have the same problem despite your ignorance of the fact. This is why I know that your particular epistemology can't be right because it claims to know for sure what is Truth when it is understood that we can not possibly know for sure. It might be truth but then it would only be a coincidence or evidence of a very cryptic method of "revelation" (in fact it shouldn't then be called revelation but rather hearsay). What I think is "fair" is based on my own thought processes (whether my own arbitrary fixed points, false, culturally derived or whatever). Whether your God exists or not, I can't deny those conclusions. Ask yourself this; if YOU were God, the creator of the universe and you made up the rules the way that you wish--everything is in your control just as you understand it in the Bible. Would you condemn millions and millions upon millions of souls to suffer in hell for eternity because they rejected you? Would you think it fair based on your personal vision of fairness. I ask this because I think that most people would not think it fair and more importantly that Gods notion of fairness is arbitrary to his whim. What if instead of eternity in hell, the punishment for we infidels would be 5 years of intense tickling of the feet? In this case, millions Christians would think it fair and thus be warning us about these terrible 5 years we must endure. You see, there is nothing wholly universal in this. "Fairness" is an illusive type of universal that is relative to other notions of fairness just as whiteness is to other things that are considered white. So Gods notion of fairness is relative and arbitrary to his own whims. However, universals such as 2+2=4 are true regardless of the whims of God. If on a whim, God created 2 things and then another 2 things, he has thus created 4 things. It would never be 5 things unless he created one more thing in addition to the other 2 groups of two. So if God exists, he is subject to these types of universal truths just as we are. He is not above them. Likewise, he is not above the relativeness of notions of fairness, whiteness, creaminess or any other type of illusive universal.
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 07/31/07 10:01:34 AM | | Age 45, AR |
We have been back and forth over the issues of presuppositions because you have refused to step up to the plate and answer the hard questions. To wit, you call it presuppostitional nonesense. Is this a true statement? If not, why are we arguing over admittedly untrue statements? If it is a true statement, then it is fair for me to ask how you establish truth in a Godless world based only on your own unaided reason. It is just that simple. Dodging the issue is of no help to you, our discussion, or the world at large. Until you establish a foundation for truth, you are only making random, chance oriented, meaningless noise. Moreover, the Bible is not just like you making your own revelation. In fact, you have been making your own revelation all along which you source back to your god reason. I have demonstrated that your "god" and "revelation" is insufficient because it fails to establish the necessary predicates for intelligence, reality, knowledge, ethics, and everything else, whereas the Bible does establish the necessary predicate. I do genuinely appreciate your honest response that you cannot give me a godless epistemology. This is what I have been trying to get you to admit for the last several months. This admission is no slight to you or your intellience. No one has ever given a godless epistemology. Thus, all knowledge reduces to a crisis of faith. You are left with only two options: theism or radical doubt. Man is wired such that we adopt our beliefs existentially, not rationally. We do not "work out" everything before we believe. Our common sense dictates our beliefs much more than rigorous rationality. Man cannot live in a constant state of existential doubt and anxiety. It is contrary to our nature. We are hard wired to turn to God. Unfortunately, we are also sinners who are hostile to God. So, we tend to turn to idols as opposed to turning to the true and living God. Your idol just happens to be reason. But, you do not serve your idol well. Because, when you try to work out your idolatry into a system, you keep slipping into subjectivism which undermines reason. Reason must objectively universalize or it ceases to exist. Yet you allow no personality in your system greater than man. Man cannot objectively universalize his reason, only a personal God can objectively universalize reason. Thus, you have oil and water in your system. You end up speaking of things like illusory, relative, universals. You have round squares in your worldview. Please also remember that I do not claim to know truth in any autonomous or independent manner. I am ignorant of truth. But, truth is revealed. Thus, I am able to objectively correspond my thoughts to truth. I also err. When I do, others like you can correct me by pointing out that my beliefs do not correspond to truth. What would I do if I were God? Fortunately, we do not have to answer that speculative question. I am not God. Do I think God is fair? Also an irrelevant question. If God is, he is fair, it does no good to complain about his actions or to question them. Our proper response is to understand God, not to question Him. It does no good to issue a Euthyphro challenge to God, he is not subject to fairness as if fairness exists independent of God, he is fairness. God is what he has. Lastly, I have already opined that I have no problem with hell and God's fairness. Adam rebelled and would have taught all his posterity to ignore God's authority. God cannot deny Himself. I do not see that he had any option other than the destruction of man. What amazes me is that He provided a pathway for man's salvation.
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 08/01/07 12:47:38 PM | | Age 37, NY |
Correction: In my previous post, I meant to say elusive not illusive. I'm a terrible speller and my spell checker must have sided in the other direction.
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: Re: EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 08/02/07 08:15:07 AM | | Age 45, AR |
No problem and thanks for the clarification. But, I also submit that "elusive" universals leads to an epistemic crisis.
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 07/31/07 07:44:16 PM | | Age 37, NY |
Your presupposition is nonsense because your premise is unsupported. I couldn't just presuppose that naturalism is the explanation to the universe and then show that it conforms to this and that observation and conclude that naturalism is the explanation. I would have to give evidence to support the premise (which there actually is some as oppose to your premise). When I say I can't give a godless epistemology it is because we can not know if god exists or not. Therefore we can not give an epistemology the involves god either. But this is what you claim to be doing. However, it might be case that you are actually attempting to give us a godless epistemology Because it is the words of man and an "idea" of God that you are taking as the foundation for your epistemology. When you say that you are able to objectively correspond your thoughts to truth. What you mean to say is that you are able to objectively correspond your thoughts to the particular things certain men have claimed to be the word of God--which would then be subjective. So whether you know it or not, you have oil and water in your system too. You maintain that without presupposing god, we have no foundation for truth, knowledge etc. yet such things seem self evident. The objectivist epistemology: existence exists seems to be more intellectually honest. It doesn't necessarily claim to know the origins of said existence but recognizes that it is there. Same for Descartes-I think, therefore I am. Both recognize the short comings of our senses. I have know doubts that we are hardwired for belief in god. Religion seems to be a natural phenomena much like our sweet tooth and/or perhaps a cultural symbiont--or meme (see Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell--interesting subject--I'm reading it now). Religion has existed in all cultures at all times--at least since the advent of language. This notion alone does nothing to cast doubt on the existence of god but it absolutely casts doubt on the primacy of the Christian god. Thomas Paine (a deist) believed that all religions were nothing more than fraudulent counterfeits of the actual creator. If indeed god exist, this may be true.
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: Re: EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 08/02/07 08:42:44 AM | | Age 45, AR |
I am making a presuppositional argument, not a deductive argument. There are no premises, supported or otherwise to my argument. I am not deductively reasoning from a premise. I am asking, "what must necessarily be true to make sense of the world?" You can only appoach questions of ultimate reality and authority presuppositionally. You cannot address these issues deductively or inductively. Cogito ergo sum is a perfect example of why you cannot. Descartes tried to deduce ultimate reality. I am on the side of the atheist, Dr. Russell, who devastated this argument. Descartes proved nothing because he presupposed his own existence; "I" think, "I" am, etc.... All thought and all systems rest on presuppositions. Naturalism rests on presuppositions, not on evidential proof. We presuppose our systems, then we marshall proof to corroborate what we have presupposed and we always interpret the evidence in conformity to our presuppositions. Sure there is evidence in support of naturalism. There is also evidence in support of theism. Where does that get us? We have a conflict of evidence. Who gets to decide what set of evidence preponderates? How do we get that judge to lay aside his presuppositions? We get no where if we give a magisterial role to evidence. We must approach these questions presuppositionally and play for keeps. We test presuppositions by requiring them to do what they claim, i.e., make sense out of everything. The reason why you cannot give a godless epistemology has nothing to do with knowing whether God exists. You cannot give me a godless epistemology because a world without God is totally contingent whereas knowledge is totally necessary. You cannot get necessity into a contingent world. Your worldview and presuppositions fail. We can know that God exists because His existence is necessary to our ability to make sense out of the world. I understand what you state regarding Christian epistemology slipping into subjectivism and I commend you for that argument. It is one of the better arguments you have made and I think you are finally getting on track. In response, remember that although I am using some Greek categories of thought, the Christian worldview is not a Greek worldview of form/idea dualism. Christianity presupposes a personal, absolute God who has made man in His own image. The question you are asking is "How do we know that when we think of God we are not just thinking about our thoughts about God?" This is the kind of question atheists should be asking Christians. The answer is that God has created His image bearer to be a revelation receiver. And, God who is Spirit, and personal, superintends man's reception of God's revelation. Broken down, God talks to us and makes sure that we grow in our understanding of His objective word. Christianity is unique. No other worldview, religous or secular has this. This is a presupposition, but it is a presupposition which breaks man out of the trap of subjectivism. And no other worldview has this ability to break out of subjectivism. That, in my judgment, is a darn good reason for being a Christian theist.
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: Re: Re: EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 08/09/07 11:18:10 PM | | Age 37, NY |
My response to this is in our Noah's Ark post.
Click here to reply to this post
Re: EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 05/26/07 03:42:52 PM |
Age 37, NY |
To 45, AR. Make that 3 parts. You still conclude that I called my children dogs? I’m not mad, it’s just that this is how you interpret what I’m saying: Humans are pack animals. Dogs are pack animals. My children are human and therefore dogs. You might then conclude the following as well: Early Americans lived in colonies. Rats live in colonies. John Smith was a rat. I know you’re just trying to be funny, because humans live in groups not packs. But the point I was making is the same (like dogs, we ostracized those who disrupt the group). I’ve talked about in group/out group dynamics in terms of morality and you just go blank. Regardless, I can see how you might find that amusing.
Click here to reply to this post
|
- Re: Re: EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 05/26/07 10:59:10 PM | | Age 45, AR |
Yes, I am picking at your unfortunate use of words, and I will move on. Nevertherless, your humanistic anthropology is quite different from a Biblical anthropology. You do think that humans, including your children, are cosmic accidents, out of nothing, short meaningless life, and into oblivion. As a father, I guess I just do not understand how another father can reject the word of God and think of their very children along these lines. I admit, I am giving you my bias here, not trying to make a detailed argument. I could, but I think my point is sufficient.
Click here to reply to this post
- EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 05/30/07 06:16:15 PM | | Age 37, NY |
Under your concept, your children’s only purpose is to serve your god. Because your god is both omniscient and omnipotent, free choice seems to be nonexistent. So therefore, if your children choose not to serve god, this would have always been known long before they were born—even before god created the universe. It would then seem that an eternity in hell was always their purpose. One can only conclude that we all have only one of two purposes in life. This nihilistic view ties into why I think Christianity is a death cult.
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 05/31/07 02:33:37 PM | | Age 45, AR |
Actually, my only purpose, your only purpose, and our childrens' only purpose in life is to glorify God and enjoy him forever. Free will is not as tricky as you may suppose. Both Christians and non-Christians struggle with free will because of our common Greek heritage which insists on stuffing free will into libertarian categories. The Bible presents sovereignty and free will as being compatible. And, this is the only presupposition which makes sense. There are only 3 possible categories: determinism, indeterminism,and self-determinism. All three destroy the possibility of free will if they exist in isoloation. If all is determined, man never exercises his will. If all is indetermined, man never exercises his will. If all is self-determined, man can never get his will started because there are no self-caused, causes (law of sufficient reason). Man cannot be held morally responsible unless he has a free will. This is true for both Christian and non-Christian ethics. But, man's free will must also be in some mysterious sense determined, because it cannot be self-determined alone. Therefor, we must presuppose compatible determinism and self-determism. We find this in the Bible, but no where else.
Click here to reply to this post
- EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 05/31/07 09:43:18 PM | | Age 37, NY |
So then you agree that if your children don't choose god, their whole purpose in life--known even before they were born--is to spend eternity in hell?
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 06/02/07 05:19:55 PM | | Age 45, AR |
Our childrens' purpose in life, irrespective of their choices, is to glorify God. All children are sinners. Sin is evil, it hurts people and it is an affront to God. If any child rejects God's bona fide offer of salvation, and persists in this rejection, they will receive justice and God will be glorified in this. Life is teleological, we are all being purposed either for glory, or destruction. A wise father will take this seriously as opposed to wasting time and brain cells on web sites like infidels.com.
Click here to reply to this post
- EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 06/12/07 03:26:23 AM | | Age 37, NY |
So let me get this straight. Without my knowledge or my asking, Jesus was heinously murdered to pay the price for my future sins, so that I can live forever. But first, I have to accept that I’m responsible for this murder. I also must believe that this execution was necessary in order to compensate for an earlier crime (the sin of Adam) in which I had no part in either. It matters not that Adam was created with insatiable curiosity and then forbidden to exercise it: ALL this being known long before both he and Jesus were even “designed”. Thus my own guilt in this matter is deemed “original” and inescapable. However, I’m still granted free will with which to reject this offer of vicarious redemption. Should I exercise this choice, I will suffer an eternity far worse than Jesus—who arose from the dead in just a few days—so he didn’t really suffer that long. How can any of this be considered just? If this is god's standard of justice then he does not conform to that which is just. What else does he not conform to? Perhaps there are other things in revelation that are not so forthcoming.
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 06/12/07 10:18:06 PM | | Age 45, AR |
Nope, not right. Out of curiosity (no tricks up my sleeve) were you raised Catholic?
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 06/13/07 10:44:39 AM | | Age 37, NY |
We may disagree on whether this is just or not. Obviously god thinks this is just. I do not. But how am I wrong about what is being asked of us? I was was raised southern baptist by the way. And you? and what do you consider yourself now?
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: Re: EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 06/13/07 05:05:18 PM | | Age 45, AR |
Interesting. Myself, Reformed and Presbyterian. I was guessing Catholic. I imagine your Baptist upbringing was pretty far over on the partial Pelagian end of the spectrum which is quiet similar to Catholicism in that both are very humanistic. I have a federal/covenantal/particular understanding of the Gospel which is different from your representation of it. Although, at your stage of disbelief I doubt you would find it very interesting. You do not even believe God exists, therefore, my assumption is that you are not interested in my theology. Thus, I will not bore you with it unless requested.
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: Re: Re: EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 06/14/07 10:41:29 PM | | Age 37, NY |
No, it was a very bible believing, speaking in tongues kind of thing. Big emphasis on dispensationalism. Lots of record burning too. In fact they don't even think Catholics are christians. I left all that 20 years ago. It all seemed so unchristian to me. I'm genuine in my question though. How is what I proposed wrong? Is this not what is expected of us?
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 06/16/07 01:08:51 PM | | Age 45, AR |
Christianity is not defined by what Christians do and think. Christianity is defined by who Jesus is and what he has revealed. This preliminary remark being stated, I have come to the same conclusions that you have concerning what you were exposed to growing up. I do not accept those beliefs either. I do not think those beliefs are supported by Scripture. So, again, I find myself in agreement with your identification of the problems, I think you have reached for the wrong solution. Next, I would restate your gospel thusly: Jesus gave his life to redeem his chosen people. This salvation was planned by the Father, accomplished by the Son and applied by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit calls those whom the Father has given unto the Son and those called will respond in repentance and faith. This is a real, free will response. Yet, our free will is dependent on God's sovereignty. We are responsible for our sin (individually) and for sin (corporately/originally). Man is an individual and a social being. So, Adam's sin is imputed to us. This is not a big deal. If you get run over by a Wal-Mart truck, you are going to sue Wal-Mart, not just the driver. This is legal imputation. The same thing occurs between Adam and his posterity. But, we add our own sin onto that which is imputed to us from Adam. Adam was created in the image of God, very good. He was created able to obey God perfectly. He is soley responsible for his rebellion against God. And, his sin was horrible. There is only one God. Adam sought to be like God. This is a declaration of war against God, Adam sought God's death. His desire was that God become non-God so that God and man would exist on the same plane of being. No innocent curiosity caused this, a lust for power caused this. If God met this sin with total justice, humanity ends and God's mercy remains unexpressed. If God met this sin with total justice, life goes on with out consequences and God is subordinated to man. So God curses (justice) and covers (mercy). The consequence of the continuation of life is that we are born under Adam's guilty sentence. We are all born under condemnation. Yet, God saves and his offer of salvation is a bona fide offer to all. So, in a sense, you are right. This is not perfect justice. It is a just mercy and a merciful justice.
Click here to reply to this post
- EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 06/26/07 05:31:14 PM | | Age 37, NY |
Still trying to break it down: We are responsible for our sin and for Adam’s sin. Adam's sin is imputed to us, despite the fact that we never asked to work for or hold shares in “Wal-Mart”. Adam was created in the image of God, very good. He was created able to obey God perfectly. He was also created able to rebel against God perfectly. God created Lucifer and allowed him to live on earth—the very same place he would latter allow man to live. God also created a tree that he then forbid Adam to eat from. It seems that a perfect god would have either destroyed Lucifer instead of just kicking him out of heaven—knowing he would later have too much influence over Adam and his creation. Or perhaps he should have never created Satan in the first place. Also, why create a forbidden tree on this same earth where Satan and man could do so much harm? Clearly this is all God’s doing. More clearly is that this is a poetic explanation for the human condition from the age of antiquity. But let’s continue anyway. God could have destroyed humanity right then and there but then his mercifulness is not expressed. Instead, he incarnates himself as the man Jesus. Jesus dies for a couple of days in order to redeem man. Clearly this is a symbolic sacrifice because apparently God exists in 3 parts and only one died and it was only temporary. This all was planned, accomplished, and applied by God. God calls on us to believe this and repent. This is a free will response. Yet, our free will is dependent on God. So should I exercise my dependent free choice and refuse this redemption, I will suffer an eternity far worse than the symbolic price that Jesus paid. My problem is that if this god exists, he would have known all of these “historical” events in advance and allowed them to be—presumably for the expression of his mercifulness and to his glory. Thus, any souls spending eternity in hell are mere expressions of his glory and merciful justice. If man had never sinned would God’s mercifulness have been expressed? No. If true, it seems God has created this whole scenario in order to please himself in this regard. Therefore when God repents and feels sorrowful that he created man, he is being totally insincere. So even if this were the one true god, I would not want to worship such a god. I'm not trying to throw a bunch of objections at you; through our discussion, this is really how I'm coming to understand this gospel.
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 06/27/07 01:14:20 PM | | Age 45, AR |
"Seems that a perfect God would do this, would do that,etc...." Where do you get your standard for perfection? How do you judge what is perfect and what is not? To exercise a judgment about what is perfect, perfection must exist. Where is this standard which you rely upon? Is it your own mind? God reveals that he does what he does to maximize his own glory. That is the answer to your "seems to me" objection. If your objection is to rise above mere autobiographical information about your likes and tastes, then you are going to have to identify a standard for perfection apart from the Bible. This you cannot do. Next, I can quibble at length with your recharacterization of what I have written, but I will not do so. Because, there is some truth to what you have written. God's glory is more important than either of us. This you cannot and will not accept psychologically, existentially, or morally. This is why you hate the very concept of the God of the Bible. He is too big for your ego. Do not get me wrong, apart from God's transforming grace, I was right there with you. But, the point is, you are not making reasoned arguments against the possibility of God, you are making psychological arguments against the acceptability of such a God. I do want to make a few comments about your observations. Whenever atheists discuss the Bible and God's attributes, truth suddenly becomes univocal. There is no room for nuance, paradox, perspectivalism, etc.... Well, I reject these presuppositions. For instance, the correct handling of a paradox is to hold the two poles in perfect tension, it is not to choose one pole over the other. God and the Bible requires this kind of mental agility and maturity. Is man dependent or independent? Well, both. And necessarily so. Is God primarily concerned with His glory or glorifying his people. Again, both. Does sinful man sadden or bring joy to God. Both. Does God benefit or not benefit from man's existence. Both. And on and on. Since you are not pursuing truth but rather seeking to justify and immunize your unbelief and enmity towards God, you are not interested in such subtleties. But, your approach comes at a price. If you approach the entire field of knowledge from the same presuppositions which you use to approach God and the Bible, you would undermine the very possibility of knowledge. So, you can be consistent, and destroy knowledge, or inconsistent, and retain knowledge. Either way, you have inescapably built irrationalism into your worldview.
Click here to reply to this post
- EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 07/05/07 09:48:39 PM | | Age 37, NY |
In this case, my standard for perfection is the god of the Bible. If he is as perfect as he is revealed to be in the Bible then the things I mention don't seem like they would have happened. But they did. I see a contradiction in this. But fine, he does what he does to maximize his glory. So does he create fallible creatures to make himself look good? My reading still stands. I'll accept for now your paradox premise but that only omits my comment about God's insincerity. So I will recap without my those opinions: We are responsible for our sin and for Adam’s sin. Adam's sin is imputed to us, despite the fact that we never asked to work for or hold shares in “Wal-Mart”. Adam was created in the image of God, very good. He was created able to obey God perfectly. He was also created able to rebel against God perfectly. God created Lucifer and allowed him to live on earth—the very same place he would latter allow man to live. God also created a tree that he then forbid Adam to eat from. Why didn't God either destroy Lucifer instead of just kicking him out of heaven—knowing he would later have too much influence over Adam and his creation. Or perhaps he should have never created Satan in the first place. Also, why create a forbidden tree on this same earth where Satan and man could do so much harm? Clearly this is all God’s doing. More clearly is that this is a poetic explanation for the human condition from the age of antiquity. But let’s continue anyway. God could have destroyed humanity right then and there but then his mercifulness is not expressed. Instead, he incarnates himself as the man Jesus. Jesus dies for a couple of days in order to redeem man. Clearly this is a symbolic sacrifice because apparently God exists in 3 parts and only one died and it was only temporary. This all was planned, accomplished, and applied by God. God calls on us to believe this and repent. This is a free will response. Yet, our free will is dependent on God. So should I exercise my dependent free choice and refuse this redemption, I will suffer an eternity far worse than the symbolic price that Jesus paid. If this god exists, he would have known all of these “historical” events in advance and allowed them to be—presumably for the expression of his mercifulness and to his glory. Thus, any souls spending eternity in hell are mere expressions of his glory and merciful justice. If man had never sinned would God’s mercifulness have been expressed? No. If true, it seems God has created this whole scenario in order to please himself in this regard.
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 07/06/07 01:31:35 PM | | Age 45, AR |
You have demonstrated no contradictions. What God reveals about himself is simply not acceptable to you. You demonstrate this when you speak in terms of what "seems" to you to be. But, since your biases are not determinative of reality, what is acceptable or not to you is irrelevant. God does not create fallible people to make himself look good. He looks good whether fallible people exist or not. His good looks are not dependent on the existence of people regardless of how it "seems" to you. Paradox does not prove that God is insincere, it only proves that humans have limited reason. Again, your "seems tos" are interrupting the clarity of your thought. You can recap all you want. It is of no interest to me. I explained in simple form the Christian claims. You deal not with what I write. Instead, you must reword it to attack a straw man. Really, seriously, no interest. Go find a sap to argue with. I did not say what is contained in your recap. Your attribution of it to me is intellectually dishonest, a form of lying, which is the point it usually reaches with atheists. No endurance when it comes to matters of substance, so you reach for the ridicule solution. You think God could have done things otherwise. So what? Since when did what is and is not acceptable to you become the standard which governs God's conduct? You complain when Christians superimpose their values, then your argument against God reduces to a superimposition of your values over God. I just do not get such double mindedness. You refuse to deal with the Christian claim as evidence by your straw man response. And your position boils down to stating that God is unacceptable to you.
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 07/17/07 10:45:13 PM | | Age 37, NY |
I was away, but incase you're still following....I'm sorry if you're bothered by my opinions and questions but I assure you that they are sincere. I'm just try to figure this out. So I will try to refine it again. Do you disagree with the following? We are responsible for our sin and for Adam’s sin. Adam's sin is imputed to us, despite any concept of fairness known to us. Adam was created in the image of God, very good. He was created able to obey God perfectly. He was also created able to rebel against God perfectly. God created Lucifer and allowed him to live on earth—the very same place he would latter allow man to live. God also created a tree that he then forbid Adam to eat from. God could have destroyed humanity right then and there but then his mercifulness is not expressed. Instead, he incarnates himself as the man Jesus. Jesus dies for a couple of days in order to redeem man. This all was planned, accomplished, and applied by God. God calls on us to believe this and repent. This is a free will response. Yet, our free will is dependent on God. So should I exercise my dependent free choice and refuse this redemption, I will suffer an eternity far worse than the symbolic price that Jesus paid. If this god exists, he would have known all of these “historical” events in advance and allowed them to be—presumably for the expression of his mercifulness and to his glory. Thus, any souls spending eternity in hell are mere expressions of his glory and merciful justice. I understand that whatever the truth of this may be, my opinion has no baring on what IS or what god's plan IS or whatever. So what. I still what to know the plan or what it is that IS.
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: Re: EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 07/18/07 01:42:48 PM | | Age 45, AR |
Since we are parsing words, I would say that Adam's sin is "imputed" to us, and we are "responsible" for our own sins. As far as your assertion that this violates all known concepts of fairness, that is an irresponsible statement. What you mean is that it violates "your" concept of fairness. The existence of 2 billion Christians refutes your assertion that this violates "all concepts of fairness". And, it does not violate "my" concept of fairness. I see it as perfect justice. God's fairness never baffles me. His mercy and grace is what baffles me. I disagree with your "symbolic price" assertion. You think Jesus would have agreed with your description if you asked while he was bleeding out on the cross? I also disagree with your reduction of God's decree to just an expression of God's glory. God's decree is an expression of God's glory. And, the expression of God's glory is for man's greatest good. This is the step you miss. This applies even to hell. Hell expresses God's glory, and this expression of God's glory is for man's good. I also disagree with your statement that your opinion (which I read as "choice") has no bearing on God's plan. It most certainly does. I am giving you a compatibilist position. God's decree and man's choice are compatible, or complimentary, they are not negations of one another.
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: Re: Re: EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 07/19/07 07:05:22 PM | | Age 37, NY |
Yes I get that you and the christians think that all this is fair. So what. If we our responsible for our sin we are responsible for our sin. Adam's sin can not be imputed to us because we are individuals with no contract concerning Adam. We are not corporations, we are humans. Is the Bible this contract? If yes, then we are in a contract with a strange supernatural dictator--no judgement here, just an observation. The Bible must also be a document instructing the proper ways in dealing with ones slaves. This too must also seem fair to you. I'm sure Jesus understands that his death was symbolic. What real price has he paid if he is still alive? If the wages of sin is death and he paid the ultimate price for our sins then how come he is still alive. And why must those who do not "receive Christ" have spend eternity in hell? Why not just spend a couple of days like Jesus. I agree that hell must be an expression to his glory. I pointed this out earlier. I also think it's quite sick. If it all turns out to be true, it wouldn't change my mind.
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 07/21/07 06:38:12 AM | | Age 45, AR |
We are too narrow, I am going back to the top.
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 07/17/07 10:44:23 PM | | Age 37, NY |
I was away, but incase you're still following....I'm sorry if you're bothered by my opinions and questions but I assure you that they are sinsire. I'm just try to figure this out. So I will try to refine it again. Do you disagree with the following? We are responsible for our sin and for Adam’s sin. Adam's sin is imputed to us, despite any concept of fairness known to us. Adam was created in the image of God, very good. He was created able to obey God perfectly. He was also created able to rebel against God perfectly. God created Lucifer and allowed him to live on earth—the very same place he would latter allow man to live. God also created a tree that he then forbid Adam to eat from. God could have destroyed humanity right then and there but then his mercifulness is not expressed. Instead, he incarnates himself as the man Jesus. Jesus dies for a couple of days in order to redeem man. This all was planned, accomplished, and applied by God. God calls on us to believe this and repent. This is a free will response. Yet, our free will is dependent on God. So should I exercise my dependent free choice and refuse this redemption, I will suffer an eternity far worse than the symbolic price that Jesus paid. If this god exists, he would have known all of these “historical” events in advance and allowed them to be—presumably for the expression of his mercifulness and to his glory. Thus, any souls spending eternity in hell are mere expressions of his glory and merciful justice. I understand that whatever the truth of this may be, my opinion has no baring on what IS or what god's plan IS or whatever. So what. I still what to know the plan or what it is that IS.
Click here to reply to this post
Re: EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 05/26/07 03:40:57 PM |
Age 37, NY |
To 45, AR. Concepts. Consciousness, this includes, knowledge, concepts, memories, etc., depend on the brain. Mental states are correlated with brain states; electrical or chemical stimulation of the human brain invokes perceptions, memories, desires, and other mental states. The greater the size of the brain and its cerebral cortex in relation to the animal body and the greater their complexity, the higher and more versatile the form of life. Mental abilities emerge with the development of the brain; failure in brain development prevents mental development. If the brain is not functioning properly—it is either damaged, partially removed or dead—the ability to formulate and use concepts is impaired. Much like the heart or liver is with its functions when they are damaged. Do you think digestion works independently of the stomach and intestines as concepts do for the brain? If the mind could exist independently of the brain, why couldn't the mind compensate for lost faculties when brain cells die after brain damage? Are you suggesting that the brain is nothing more than a transmission apparatus for transcendent concepts and knowledge—the “soul” if you will? A severe injury to the head, for instance, may cause a loving Christian man to become sullen, morose and subject to sudden fits of homicidal rage. If the brain and body are simply the instruments of the soul, we have to say that this man is really still brimming over with joy and benevolence, but that unfortunately he can only express himself in dark glances, in peevish complaints and in violent attacks. Similar to an earlier suggestion of mine, even someone of “sound mind” may actually have some damaged aspects that would prevent him from understanding God as you say is required of us—or as some might say, missing the “God Gene”. We can observe brain activity and what parts of the brain are working during certain activities or thoughts. For example, memory and abstraction occur in the hippocampus part of the brain. Memory is essential to self-identity. Electrical or chemical stimulation of the brain can prevent the formation of new memories and cause memory loss. Neuroscientists have accumulated a considerable amount of evidence that long-term memory traces are dependent on changes in the strengths of synaptic connections among neurons. The proper functioning of memory depends on the associational patterns laid down as enduring structural imprints through means of those connections. It is difficult beyond measure to understand how they could survive after the destruction of the living brain in which they had their origin. So basically, you are concluding that the mind is eternal despite evidence to the contrary and therefore you must presuppose God in order for your conclusion to make sense. It is completely irrational to justify wishful thinking with presuppositions. Man depends on concepts but man in his brain creates them. This is not a presupposition. Just as man depends on shelter, he also creates it. Just as he depends a hammer to nail, he also creates the hammer (and the nail). Formulating concepts are a function of the brain. We observe the world through our perceptions, within our brain, we make comparisons (baseball, basketball, soccer ball), we ponder the similarities (spherical) and finally we abstract (ball). There is a neurological explanation for the ability of the organ known as the brain—in conjunction with other sense organs—to carry out the functions of perception, comparison, abstraction, memory, desire, etc. You are simply jumping to the conclusion that says, well I don’t know how the brain works, god must have made it. You say that my children were created in god’s image, then why do they need to depend on concepts. Their brain function implies another kind image. Your presupposition, IF correct, only proves that there is a god. This then would be yet another reason to take the Christian god off the list. You say that your god created concepts so we can know him. Well if we are of his image, wouldn’t we just know him? Why didn’t god just have us know? Satan knows God and still rejected him, so it’s not like it was a matter of free will. It just seems like more evidence that these are man made stories. Morals. Yes I advocate a rational value system. I think it’s a good one. And yes, you are free to be irrational (your morals are concerned with what is good for a being that cannot even HAVE wants).
Click here to reply to this post
|
- Re: Re: EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 05/26/07 11:18:07 PM | | Age 45, AR |
I am not trying to contest neuro-science, nor do I claim competency to do so. Christian anthropology presents man as a mind/body continuum. This is one of the reasons death is so unnatural, it effects a division which is unnatural. Now, if our only epistemic tool is induction, I agree that there is no reason to believe that man has a mind apart from a brain. But, epistemology is not limited to induction. Christian epistemology includes revelation. If God exists and he reveals that man has a mind in addition to a brain, then man has a mind and a brain. In your worldview, man only has a brain, the mind is an illusion. Thought is epiphenomenom, brain gas. Your brain gas may be more sophisticated than that of a rat, but it is gas nonetheless. There are consequences to this view. One of which is that the brain secretes thoughts like the liver secretes bile. Thus your thoughts and my thoughts are materialistically determined. This destroys free will. And, arguments presuppose free will. You are arguing. So, you are once again caught in a contradiction. You espouse the idea that man has a brain only, but you argue as if man has a mind which is not dependent on the brain. You cannot justify your argument upon your atheistic presuppositions. Argumentation presupposes the God of the Bible, not just any god. Argumentation presupposes the whole Christian bottle of pills and no other theist worldview provides the necessary foundation for argumentation. And, God did create us to know him. This is why Paul told the church at Rome that man is without an excuse. The fact that you argue shows that you do know God. We are all sinners. In sin, we suppress this immediate knowledge which we do have. Brain injuries do effect the mind. But, not necessarily permanently so. The whole stem cell debate presupposes that mentation lost, can be restored. Brain damage does not disprove my presupposition, it merely points to the limits of current medical science.
Click here to reply to this post
- EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 05/30/07 06:35:41 PM | | Age 37, NY |
I have given you a fair amount of empirical evidence supporting brain dependence. There is a lot more to be had. I admit that the mind/brain problem is a large and complex question with many different theories. Read this one for example: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/steven_conifer/mbd.html. It is almost as big a question as the first cause or life from non-life. Likewise, your presupposition that explains it is just as weak as it is for those other problems. The main problem for you here is your “revelation”. All of your wisdom about all of these philosophical problems depends on what you are told in the Bible. The wisdom you claim to have answers all of these great questions that have baffled man sense he first said “I”. Therefore the Bible cannot just be taken at face value. It must pass some sort of smell test. So let’s take another look at it. In an earlier post, I demonstrated the many inconsistencies in the “moral” instruction found in the Bible. You dismissed them as my misinterpretation and that your interpretation was the correct one. Our disagreement shows the fallible nature of the text. How could such a revelation be so misunderstood? To blame the fall of Adam fails to see the internal loop that that implies and that god should have used something else to revel himself other than man—especially illiterate farmers. Besides, in all of the world’s languages and cultures, we all have agreement of what the color red is. Why can we not have a similar agreement on what the revelation from god is—not whether or not it is true but just what it is claiming to be true? Israel Finklestein and Neil Silberman of the Institute of Archaeolgy at Tel Aviv University, despite their self-interest, conclude that there was no flight from Egypt, no wandering in the desert (let alone for 4 decades), and no dramatic conquest of the Promise Land. No Egyptian chronical mentions this episode either—not even in passing. One can only assume that it was all made up some time after the events were supposed to have occurred. It also seems that the Pentateuch (the books of Moses) were not even written by Moses. Again, written some time after him as an attempted history of his life and times prior to his life (the legend of Paul Bunyan comes to mind). The last four of the books (Genesis never mentions him) allude to Moses in the third person. Does he speak of himself in third person and then proclaim that he is meek (Numbers 12:3)? In Deuteronomy, there is an introduction of the subject, then an introduction of Moses himself in mid-speech, then back to the narrative by whoever is writing, then to Moses, and then the account of his death and burial. Are we to assume that Moses wrote the account of his own funeral? It seems obvious that this was written by someone else and perhaps many people. The Pentateuch contains two discrepant accounts of the Creation, two different genealogies of the seed of Adam, and two narratives of the Flood. At one point the writer forgets that the Sabbath day is holy because god rested on the seventh day. Suddenly, that day is holy because god brought his people out of the land of Egypt. Then there are the countless absurdities—talking snakes, Noah and his arch, and light existing before the sun—there are so many of these that I can’t bare to list them all. The context is oppressively confined and local. None of these people, or their deity, seems to have any idea of a world beyond the desert, the flocks and herds, and the imperative of nomadic subsistence. It suggests that the god they refer to was created in their image not the other way around.
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 05/31/07 03:07:31 PM | | Age 45, AR |
I have not disagreed with your empirical evidence concerning the operation of the brain, I have disagreed with your conclusion that this evidence proves that thoughts are dependent exclusively on the brain. I have given you a philosophical disproof. I could go further but I think my disproof is sufficient. There is also medical disproof. Although neuroscience is not my specialty, I do interact quiet frequently with neurosurgeons, neurologists, and neuropsychologists. The experts will agree that the mind and brain are largely unknown and mysterious. The part of the brain which houses memory can be seriously damaged and the connections broken. Yet, notwithstanding the irreparable damage, memory can be partially restored. Where were those memories before they were restored? Their house was destroyed. You think you have a QED from medical science. The experts would disagree with you. As for arguing about the particulars of the Bible, I think it is premature. We have no common standard of interpretation. You will not accept the truth of the Bible until it meets "your" smell test. That is not the right standard. The test is whether it is true, not whether it persuades you. You do not accept the standard of truth. Interpreting the Bible requires application of the right standard. We have not agreed on what that standard is. It would be a foolish waste of time for both of us to argue about what the Bible means when we are applying different standards. This is why I am avoiding the topic for now. For you, if God reveals, he is obligated to make sure that no one disagrees with what he has revealed. I disagree. For God to reveal, he is obligated to reveal himself in such a way that he is truely known by man, and he has. When God tests man's willingness to submit to his revelation, this test does not disclose a defect in God, it discloses a defect in man. God is then most glorified in saving man from this defect. There are answers to all your objections to the Bible, we both know that. I accept those answers as being sufficient, you do not. We both look at the same body of evidence and come away with antithetical conclusions. There is a reason for this. Our conclusions are never formed by the evidence. Our conclusions are formed by our presuppositions and we interpret the evidence consistent with our presuppositions. Thus, I focus on your presuppositions. There are plenty of Christians out there who will argue with you all day long about your verses, I am just not one of them. As long as you cling to your presuppositional faith commitments, I see no profit in arguing about whether you are convinced by the Bible.
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 05/31/07 10:20:31 PM | | Age 37, NY |
I do agree that the brain is a mystery. But it is you who presupposes a real god based something that is clearly made up to account for it. Now you are avoiding the obvious facts about the historical accuracy of the Bible. The Bible has to be valid in order to validate your presupposition, not the other way around. You can't just ignore the stuff you don't like if it doesn't find your presupposition. You are better off presupposing a god that has not revealed himself. Not only would this explain our existence, it would also explain why no one knows the answers to all these philosophical questions about the mind/brain dependency and knowledge etc. You also would not have to pretend that a historical examination of the Bible isn't important.
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: Re: EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 06/01/07 06:24:21 PM | | Age 45, AR |
We are both presupposing, that has been my point all along. You have not wrapped your mind around it yet. What I am doing is avoiding a foolish argument. The historicity of the Bible excels that of any other book of antiquity. If you reject the historicity of the Bible (and you have) then to be consistent, you have to reject the historicity of every other book of antiquity. People on the internet make the kinds of arguments you are making, scholars do not. Scholars may not ultimately accept the Bible, but not for your reasons. You have decided at the presuppositional level to reject the Bible, then you go out looking for any argument, good or bad, to support your presuppositional bias. If I work thru one of your objections, you will replace it with five more. You grossly misrepresent what Scripture actually says. You likely have not even read all the verses, you probably are getting your arguments from web sites. You certainly have not researched how Christians respond to the objections.And, I have no penchant for foolish arguments. Say something serious and I will engage, say something foolish like Jesus did not exist, the exodus did not occur, and I will ignore you. If you are really that disinformed, you need to engage in further study before you are ready for serious discussion.
Click here to reply to this post
- EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
| Posted On: 06/02/07 07:21:31 PM | | Age 37, NY |
Clearly, I am no scholar. But do you claim that Israel Finklestein, Neil Silberman, and Christopher Hitchens are not scholars? It is from their research that I quote. Also, I never said there was not someone named Jesus going around saying all the things that other people claimed that he said. Quite the opposite actually. I gather that the authors of the gospels had to contrive their Bethlehem story in order to conform the guru known as Jesus of Nazareth to the prophecy of the OT. Antiquity? People read books like the Iliad as the works of fiction that they are. Most myths of antiquity have uncertain histories of origin. They should all be evaluated separately. One thing we can be sure of is that they are the fabricated fictions of man.
| | |
