Biblical Principles to Preserve Sanity in the Midst of Moral Chaos and a Response to a Baptist Pastor in North Carolina

1. Boris, at this point (as I have pointed out) I am not trying to convince you, but rather expose the falseness of your claims for all to see.

   Philosophy is patently not antithetical to religion, and again, what basis do you have to assume I know naught of philosophy or any other discipline? No need to answer- you have none.

2. Why do you want to keep other people from questioning their religion? Why do doubt and slepticism frighten you so much?

3. Boris,

   You have rewritten history to suit your religion again. An unbiased perusal of who started hospitals and medical missions and orphanages and unwed mother homes and prison support groups and who it was that was against Hitler and that were trying to help Jews escape and on and on, show you to be hopelessly under the influence of a belief system that does not care what the facts are. You have more blind faith than anybody I have ever met. You are religious to the max. You are indoctrinated to the max.

   Chuck Colson was an unbeliever that was convicted during watergate. He became a believer while in prison and then went on to help prisoners through Prison Fellowship. Where are the atheists that are laying down their lives to help the downtrodden and outcasts?

   Everybody but you can see and understand that Hitler had denied YHWH in his heart. His speeches were designed to rally support not to preach the gospel. His views and actions prove what he really believed.

   James 2
   18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

   Boris, you have shown us your faith. You serve and worship “Norm” who is the personification of your personal view of what everybody that is as intelligent as yourself thinks. You are a religious zealot for atheistic materialism. You are a believer in the god self. And when atheists act morally, it is because they have stolen Christian morality or are afraid of what people will think if they acted the way their system of belief demands.

   And it is absurd for you and “Norm” to think that higher intelligence evolved because our ancestors ate meat. What do you think is the average IQ of a maggot or a barracuda or what ever evolved from them? Why do we not have teeth and digestive systems that show that we have evolved to eat meat? Maybe soon we will develop wolf-like mouths and agility. Maybe we should stop putting our efforts into teaching our children to eat their fruits and vegetables so that we will evolve faster. Strange that our intelligence came from eating meat but our intelligence is not smart enough to know to eat our fruits and vegetables. An evolutionary paradox…hmmmm?

   Shalom

4. Boris,

   With all of your rolling and laughing, I am pretty sure that you are on the cutting edge of your religion. It will probably be called the Unholy Rollers. “ROFL” is nothing but ridicule. It is not debating or refuting the many things that have been brought up. You really need to get up to speed on actually proving your points and try some honest attempts at proving ours wrong. A little less time rolling, ranting and raving and a little more time listening and learning wouldn’t hurt you a bit.

   Shalom

5. Boris,

   If you can exercise a little self control and stop laughing and rolling for about 5 to 10 minutes, then check out this short article:

   http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v5i10f.htm

   Here are some excerpts:

   “Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution

   Do any scientists with Ph.D. degrees reject the theory of evolution? Yes, they do!

   The Credential Attack

   You may have noticed that evolutionists often attack the scientific credentials of any scientist who rejects the theory of evolution. They have to do this because:

   There is so little scientific evidence that supports evolution.
   What little evidence they have is highly questionable.

   Since they can’t refute the scientific evidence, they try to refute the scientist.

   The more time we spend defending ourselves, the less time we have to present factual data about the unscientific notions upon which the theory of evolution is based. That’s why we tend to ignore the personal attacks and focus on science.

   Because we do this, our critics naturally claim that we don’t defend the credentials of scientists who reject the theory of evolution because we can’t. Since the charge is repeatedly made that all “real scientists” accept the theory of evolution, we will address that charge this month.
   Past Scientists

   There is no question that some of the most famous scientists of all times believed in creation. Ann Lamont has written a book entitled 21 Great Scientists Who Believed The Bible. She devotes chapters to Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Linnaeus, Euler, Faraday, Babbage, Joule, Pasteur, Kelvin, Maxwell, and Werner von Braun. These men weren’t dummies, and they believed in creation.

   Evolutionists, of course, will argue that these great scientists lived before Darwin, and weren’t acquainted with the theory of evolution or modern scientific discoveries. While that may be true of some, it certainly isn’t true of Werner von Braun (1912 – 1977). Furthermore, their argument is based on the false premise that the evidence for the theory of evolution is stronger today than it was in the sixteenth through twentieth centuries. In reality, it was easier to believe in the theory of evolution when the fossil record was much less complete, before spontaneous generation of life was disproved, before genetics and molecular biology were understood as well as they are today.”

   “We get criticized for using fairly tale analogies, but we can’t help seeing a similarity to the story of The Emperor’s New Clothes. Wise people knew the emperor was naked, but they were afraid to say so because they were afraid to appear to be fools. When one little boy blurted out the truth, then other people had the courage to agree. We believe that there are many other scientists like DeHart, Haley, and LeVake who realize the inadequacy of the theory of evolution to explain the origin of life, and are just now willing to state what they know to be true because other scientists have broken the ice by saying that the emperor has no clothes.
   Who Are Real Scientists?

   But, some might argue, DeHart, Haley, and LeVake aren’t really scientists. They are just high school science teachers.

   If high school science teachers aren’t really scientists, then we have to accept the fact that a large segment of the general public (specifically, people who have high school diplomas and no higher education) were taught everything they know about science from unqualified non-scientists. This line of reasoning leads to the conclusion that many people have been taught that evolution is true by non-scientists who don’t know what they are talking about.

   We consider science teachers to be real scientists. We think engineers are real scientists. We don’t limit the term “scientist” to professors of evolutionary biology.”

   “This is another example of how evolutionists use circular reasoning. Circular logic concludes that no “real scientist” rejects evolution because the very fact that he rejects evolution means he isn’t a “real scientist”.

   My late friend Jim Rieger used this method to distinguish a scientist from an engineer:

   When a scientist makes a discovery, he immediately thinks, “This is an amazing new discovery. Where should I publish it?” When an engineer makes a discovery, he immediately thinks, “This is an amazing new discovery. How can I make a buck with it?”

   Engineers are scientists who use scientific knowledge to design products (or invent procedures) that are commercially profitable. Scientists may speculate about how planets are formed, but not one of them has ever actually made a planet. On the other hand, when engineers claim they know to how to build a space probe that can reach those planets, they actually have to build it. This means that engineers tend to be brought back to reality more often than college professors.

   ALL my friends with Ph.D. degrees who are college professors believe in evolution. NONE of my friends with Ph.D. degrees who work in the defense industry believe in evolution.”

   “Notice that if one is an engineer, he only “claim[s] to have academic credentials,” and isn’t really a scientist, in the words of that evolutionist. In response to his next-to-last sentence, one could argue that engineers are more inclined to accept only actual experimental results, whereas scientists are more likely to accept fanciful theories (if told skillfully enough).
   Why Does it Matter?

   Why does it matter who is a scientist and who isn’t? Because our society has been conditioned to accept the notion that any sentence that begins, “Scientists say …” is undeniably true. The general public has been told that scientists are unbiased, objective individuals who are never wrong. If you can’t trust what scientists say, what can you trust?

   Evolutionists weren’t too worried when scientists said evolution was true and preachers said it wasn’t. But now that thousands of scientists (not counting engineers and high school science teachers) are saying publicly that evolution isn’t true, that’s a big problem for evolutionists. Scientists have much more credibility (in their opinion) than mere preachers do. The general public might believe what scientists say. Therefore, the evolutionists have to convince the public that the scientists who reject evolution aren’t really scientists-they are just high school science teachers, engineers, or skillful debaters posing as scientists.

   Why 50 Scientists Reject Evolution

   We would like to recommend the book In Six Days (why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation) edited by John F. Ashton. It is a collection of fifty essays, each written by a different scientist. Each author’s (impressive) academic credentials are listed at the beginning of his or her essay. They span a wide variety of academic disciplines. They aren’t all engineers! (But some are.)”

   “Although we failed to count the number of times every argument was used, we did notice that the second law of thermodynamics was mentioned by seven of the fifty scientists. Specifically, they were Jeremy Walter and Stanley Mumma (two engineers), Larry Vardiman and Don deYoung (two physicists), Ker Thompson and John Baumgardner (two geophysicists, but Baumgardner also has B.S. and M.S. degrees in electrical engineering as well as his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Geophysics and Space Physics), and Geoff Downes (forestry research, but he learned about thermodynamics in a physical chemistry class).

   We, too, believe the second law of thermodynamics is one of the most powerful arguments against evolution. We have not used it on our web site because we haven’t found a way to explain it in a way that the general public can understand. These seven men give it a valiant try, and nearly succeed.

   The problem is that thermodynamics is a one-semester mechanical engineering course that mechanical and electrical engineering students are generally required to take to graduate. Physics majors probably have to take it, too. It is a course that students usually try to put off until their junior or senior years because it is a tough course, which many students flunk.

   To explain why the second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution, one must rely on concepts appreciated only by people who have received a passing grade in thermodynamics. People who don’t understand thermodynamics make stupid counter-arguments about snowflakes or open systems.”

   “We certainly agree that most of the scientists who reject evolution believe the Bible, but it is unclear which is the cause and which is the effect. Do scientists reject evolution because they believe the Bible, or do they believe the Bible because they reject evolution? (On the other side of the coin, most atheists are evolutionists. Are they evolutionists because they are atheists? or are they atheists because they are evolutionists?)”

   Just read the article and explore the website. You just might learn something. More likely you will continue to laugh and roll as you continue in your religiously induced atheistic trance.

   The choice is yours.

   Shalom

6. Boris,

   Give this a shot this weekend:

   http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com/

   Go to the above site, scroll down to the links that say “Why I am not an atheist part 1” and “Why I am not an atheist part 2”, listen to these presentations by Ravi Zacharias, and let us know what you think.

   Shabat Shalom

7. Boris, you have shown us your faith. You serve and worship “Norm” who is the personification of your personal view of what everybody that is as intelligent as yourself thinks. You are a religious zealot for atheistic materialism. You are a believer in the god self.

   Response: I believe in myself but I don’t view myself as a god. I don’t think I’m going to live forever.

   And when atheists act morally, it is because they have stolen Christian morality or are afraid of what people will think if they acted the way their system of belief demands.

   Response: In what way does not believing what other people claim about their Gods and religions demand a person act may I ask? I already demonstrated that morality based on the value of human life itself is superior to Christian morality based on the Bible in post #250 on this thread. I also showed that it wasn’t until the rise of skepticism and secularism that Christians became civilized and so it is Christianity that has borrowed its modern morals from secular humanism. True to form you completely ignored my refutation of your claim and went right on repeating it as if no objections had been raised to it at all. My statement stands. Christians borrow their morals from secular humanism.

   I’m not reading any of the stuff you want me to. I highly doubt you’d read anything a skeptic suggested that you read. I’m very familiar with Christian apologetics. There aren’t any creationist or theistic arguments I don’t know how to refute. I can’t argue with Ravi Zacharias he’s not here. But I can refute his arguments if you want to post a brief version of one or two of them in your own words. You are not going to change my mind with arguments because arguments are not evidence. Unbelief is the natural position to take on any subject until something has been proved at least beyond a reasonable doubt. The existence of God has not been proved and so the natural position to take on the claims people make about various Gods is unbelief or atheism. Short of a personal appearance by God I shall remain an unbeliever. I don’t care what you believe about God or modern science. However you’re obviously very concerned about what I think because you’ve wasted an awful lot of time and space on this blog trying to convince me to believe what you do. I think you’re just trying to convince yourself that what other people have convinced you to believe is really true.

8. Boris,

   I ran across this studying something else. Just thought you might want to know about an archeological find concerning one of the 12 original apostles of Y’shua.

   “On Wednesday, 27 July 2011 the Turkish news agency Anadolu reported that archeologists had unearthed the Tomb of Saint Philip during excavations in Hierapolis close to the Turkish city Denizli. The Italian professor Francesco D’Andria stated that scientists had discovered the tomb, within a newly revealed church. He stated that the design of the Tomb, and writings on its walls, definitively prove it belonged to the martyred Apostle of Jesus.”

   The above quote is from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_the_Apostle#cite_note-11

   Your “not a shred of evidence” statement proves untrue once again. You make pretty bold assertions for someone that hasn’t read everything. Of course to be a true atheist, declaring that there is no God, you would have to be omniscient and that would prove that you were God and thus disprove your absolute statement that there is no God. For someone who doesn’t believe in absolutes, you sure have a lot of absolute beliefs.

   Shalom

9. Is Boris a “true atheist” – does he venture where (I’m assuming, here) much more learned men (i.e.: Richard Dawkins – even Dawkins says he is not 100% certain of atheism) do not dare ?

10. I didn’t say nor do I think I could prove there is no God. I just think the evidence for God is on the same level as the evidence for werewolves. And the evidence for the supposed tomb of Saint Phillip is on the same level as the evidence for the James ossuary and the Shroud of Turin.

11. Unless Boris has fooled us all, he is a Seeker of Truth, which means he must follow some rules in spite of himself. I have met many Liars where there is no connection whatsoever. But empirical science has many strict rules, and that is a trap for so-called ‘free-thinkers’. If I don’t follow the exact sequence every time, my bluetooth won’t allow me on the internet. If the laws of aerodynamics aren’t followed, the airplane won’t get off the ground. So ‘anything goes’ concerning your Life doesn’t seem to apply in light of scientific experimentation; many thousands of hours are constantly spent ‘getting it right’.
    In Him, Ron M

12. Boris,

    You wrote:
    “I just think the evidence for God is on the same level as the evidence for werewolves. And the evidence for the supposed tomb of Saint Phillip is on the same level as the evidence for the James ossuary and the Shroud of Turin.”

    And you know this because you decided it was this way before you investigated it.

    I guess you can continue to only accept evidence that goes along with your predetermined conclusions. That is all that you are doing. You are going nowhere fast in a nonexistent search for truth…running little circles in your mind. If by some outside chance you would like to investigate a website that deals with peer reviewed scientific findings and critiques them scientifically and logically, here is your place to go:

    http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v15i4f.htm

    Start with this article and then peruse the site.

    Of course, if you have already decided that the site must be wrong because it disagrees with you, then you probably should go back to your ROFLing. It will give you some aerobic exercise, but it will not keep your conscience from atrophying and it won’t help you see through a blindfold.

    Shalom

13. Boris believes there is no god- therefore he is an antheist. He claims to have seen no evidence for God’s existence. Evidence has been offered and rejected.

    The converse however has to be pointed out: there is no evidence for God’s non-existence.

    So we have supported reasons to believe that God does exist (in many forms- physical evidence i.e. creation, classical arguments from metaphysics, personal testimonies, corroborating historical investigations to the biblical claims, etc).

    And then we have preferences and opinions that God does not exist- because well, it seems better for some to believe that He doesn’t. Bot no evidence at all that he does not- because as many prominent Atheists have poited out, it cannot be proven that God does not exist.

14. To complete my points above:
    It has been stated here that the natural or perhaps preferred position to take is “unbelief”. That status would be held until irrefutable evidence is brought forth to cause “belief”. I think it was meant in a general sense- whether one is discussing man-made global warming, the orignation of life from non-life, the human-ness of an un-born child, the factual veracity of biblical history, or the existence of God, as some possible propositions to believe or disbelieve.

    I am skeptical that the most natural position is always unbelief- it would certainly depend on what is being presented. In science, when testing a hypothesis, we are trying to disprove (starting in un-belief).

    In nearly any other realm, belief may be the most natural position to take in the first. Note how difficult it is to stamp out religious belief among the peoples in nations whose governments enforce atheism (substituting statism). Eventually the society recognizes that religion is very important to keep a stable society. Is this a vestige of “evolutionary” development, no longer needed? Is theism a societal norm so ingrained it would take generations to remove? Or is it the natural state to recognize that god exists, based on human observation and experience?

    I don’t think the answers are as settled as some would lead others to believe. I don’t think unbelief is the most natural state. There is research to back this up.

15. Note, in the discussion above, “belief” in god does NOT equal FAITH in God. One can believe in, but not submit onesself to the existing god.

16. Matt B,

    Good point.

    Hebrews 11
    6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

    Shalom

17. Bo, interesting that I was reminded in the spirit about belief and faith- the verse you brought is very timely- thanks.

    Boris, you have made this statement in one form or another a few times, “…it wasn’t until the rise of skepticism and secularism that Christians became civilized and so it is Christianity that has borrowed its modern morals from secular humanism.”

    This is very interesting and I wonder what evidence or arguments you have to back it up.

    From an early church “father” Tertullian:
    “Look,” they say, “how they love one another” (for they themselves hate one another); “and how they are ready to die for each other” (for they themselves are readier to kill each other).” from Apologeticum ch. 39, 7

    Relating the non-Christians remarks about the community of believers in Christ, he wrote this in early 3rd century A.D. Other sections describe how the Christians helped poor children, widows, abstained from sexual immorality, murder, drunkenness, lying and murder (in contrast to some pagan norms). Many other general acts courage, kindness, and loving care were outlined as well. These are only one man’s observations of his times, his community.

    Point is, how again can it be said that Christianity “borrowed” its morals from secular humanism? It seem to me that it is quite the opposite. Secular humanism has recognized good moral behavior (in some form anyway) and claimed it for their own- in that humanists recognize the need for “good” morals. The departure is that outside the Law of Grace, morals inevitably become corrupted, or go in wrongful directions if even initially meaning well (the early Soviet Union, for one obvious example). Yes, a secular humanist may be a very “moral” person- but it means living beyond, not within, the framework of non-belief in God.

18. ron david metcalf
    Unless Boris has fooled us all, he is a Seeker of Truth, which means he must follow some rules in spite of himself. I have met many Liars where there is no connection whatsoever. But empirical science has many strict rules… So ‘anything goes’ concerning your Life doesn’t seem to apply in light of scientific experimentation; many thousands of hours are constantly spent ‘getting it right’.

    Response: Okay Ron you can live by the rules for inanimate objects and walk by faith in religious dogma and I’ll go by educated guesses.

    Bo
    And you know this because you decided it was this way before you investigated it.
    I guess you can continue to only accept evidence that goes along with your predetermined conclusions. That is all that you are doing.

    Response: That’s hilarious coming from someone who assumes any scientific finding that disagrees with the Bible must automatically be incorrect.

    You are going nowhere fast in a nonexistent search for truth…running little circles in your mind. If by some outside chance you would like to investigate a website that deals with peer reviewed scientific findings and critiques them scientifically and logically, here is your place to go:

    Response: Your website hasn’t published any scientific peer-reviewed papers itself and yet somehow you think they’re qualified to critique real papers that report on actual experiments, demonstrations and observations! When are creationists going to actually produce something useful with their creation “science” may I ask? You can’t just publish a bunch of arguments that supposedly refute actual work done in a lab and observations made the field. You have to go out and do the same kind of work yourself if you want to prove something. That’s how real scientists work and produce real world results. Christian colleges and universities teach evolution and reject creationism. How come your creationists on that website can’t even get your own CHRISTIAN colleges and universities to teach their creationism? You let me know when they do. That isn’t ever going to happen and we both know why.

    Matt B

    Boris believes there is no god- therefore he is an antheist. He claims to have seen no evidence for God’s existence. Evidence has been offered and rejected.

    Response: You didn’t offer any evidence but only arguments and arguments are not evidence. On the one hand believers tell us that God’s existence is indisputably seen in nature, and those who disbelieve are without excuse. However that claim runs in direct contrast to the argument that God could give proof of his existence, but won’t because that would take away our free will to believe or disbelieve. So which is it Matt? Has God given proof of his existence or not? Do we have free will or not?

    Note, in the discussion above, “belief” in god does NOT equal FAITH in God. One can believe in, but not submit onesself to the existing god.

    Response: Is that what you would do if you found out that the God of Islam was the one true God and the creator of the universe?

    I already demonstrated that morals based on the whims of a deity most of the world does not believe exists are subjective to the extreme. This is why for most of its history Christianity has been a violent, oppressive, intolerant and bloodthirsty religion. It’s only since the rise of secular humanism that Christianity has become a civilized religion. Should we think Christians had an attack of conscience and stopped hunting heretics, burning witches and fighting wars of aggression to spread their religion? Or is it more logical to assume that it was the rise of secular humanism that gave Christianity its modern face? Believe what you want.

    FYI your “Law of Grace” is not a real law. It’s imaginary religious dogma.

19. If Boris could convince himself that we are all fools, that the rewards of this life are all there is, and that is all, he would be happy; and even the Apostle Paul can offer no “proof” otherwise, except the Witness of the Spirit of GOD. Yet, there is this nagging doubt that it doesn’t quite all add up, or else he would stop trying to convince us. Jesus said (paraphrasing): “What if you conquer the world, but lose your soul?” This is not classic literature; it is GOD’s question to man for all ages. Though he was ‘close’ to having it all figured out, the rich young ruler, when confronted by GOD, couldn’t make that final step toward the question he had asked. GOD’s answers demand action.
    In Him, Ron M.

20. Boris, please show me your evidence for non-existence of god. Sorry, but given how many claim that he does, and how evident it is from creation, the atheist claims are just opinion in the absence of any type of evidence.

    You have patently not demonstrated that secular humanistic morals are somehow superior, and those based on the teachings of Jesus Christ are inferior. I have given you evidence of the contrary. Your reply is…

21. Boris,

    You wrote:
    “Your website hasn’t published any scientific peer-reviewed papers itself and yet somehow you think they’re qualified to critique real papers that report on actual experiments, demonstrations and observations! When are creationists going to actually produce something useful with their creation “science” may I ask? You can’t just publish a bunch of arguments that supposedly refute actual work done in a lab and observations made the field. You have to go out and do the same kind of work yourself if you want to prove something. That’s how real scientists work and produce real world results.”

    Did you go to the website and actually read anything fully? Or are you just using arguments and platitudes to dismiss what you haven’t investigated?

    As for evolutionists…they just produce arguments and ideas and have not been able to demonstrate that live can come from non life and they have produced no experiment that shows one kind of organism turning into another. Evolution is a philosophy and a religion not science.

    Shalom

22. There have been many cross-breeding experiments that result in sterility; the GMO food experiments are DANGEROUS in that corporations would be in charge of the distribution of sterile seed to the nations. Vaccines have been suspect lately and are subject to scrutiny. Science, like Nobel’s dynamite, has proved itself much more adept toward death and destruction than Life.
    Witness Hawking’s (discredited) Black Hole theories as the most celebrated Modern Thought.
    In Him, Ron M.

23. Boris,

    You wrote:
    “When are creationists going to actually produce something useful with their creation “science” may I ask?”

    You haven’t read your history. If you had you wouldn’t ask silly questions.

    “There is no question that some of the most famous scientists of all times believed in creation. Ann Lamont has written a book entitled 21 Great Scientists Who Believed The Bible. She devotes chapters to Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Linnaeus, Euler, Faraday, Babbage, Joule, Pasteur, Kelvin, Maxwell, and Werner von Braun. These men weren’t dummies, and they believed in creation.”-from: http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v5i10f.htm

    Please read the link if you haven’t already decided that it cannot be true.

    Shalom

24. Boris,

    You wrote:
    “Christian colleges and universities teach evolution and reject creationism. How come your creationists on that website can’t even get your own CHRISTIAN colleges and universities to teach their creationism? You let me know when they do. That isn’t ever going to happen and we both know why. ”

    At least 24 Christian colleges do not teach evolution according to this website: http://www.returntotheword.org/colleges.html

    Shalom

25. Boris,

    Do these count as scientists that produced “something useful with their creation science”?

    Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)

    Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)

    Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)

    Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)

    Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)

    Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)

    William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)

    Young-Gil Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Ph.D. in Materials Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / highly distinguished / inventor of various important high-tech alloys.

    There are many more.

    Shalom

26. It has been observed that the tenets of Darwinian evolutionary thought (and its more recent off-shoots) have not had any discernable affect on actual scientific discovery (outside of the smallish enclave of evolutionary biology itself, of course):

    “Dr. Marc Kirschner, 2005 chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated in a Boston Globe article: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” Dr. P.S. Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers ….” Evolution actually hinders medical discovery. Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?”

    I could summarize the content of the posts in this thread; numerous straw-man assertations, setting up fallacies and downright falsehoods as fact, to whit:

    1. Constantine invented Christianity
    2. Jesus of Nazareth never even existed
    3. the whole of historicity in the Judeo-Christian scriptures has been “proven” false and is therefore myth
    4. evolution has been “proven” true, though there are no fossil records that directly support evolutionary progression.
    5. Life sprang forth from non-life, without an intelligence providing intent.
    6. Fundamentalist Christian beliefs inexorably lead to family violence
    7. Hitler was a practicing Christian in the fullest sense, and not an ideologue driven by lust for power and evolutionary thought
    8. Secular humanism produces higher moral standards than Christianity, which is clearly depraved. Atheism is therefore a superior worldview.
    9. Christians cannot understand science or evolution, and therefore have not contributed at all to scientific discoveries
    10. Though the world appears to have a Creator, it cannot have been thus. Scientists must remind themselves of this over and over (reference a quote from Sir Francis Crick the co-discoverer of DNA).
    11. Christians have faith in their religion simply because they are afraid of hell, and are too afraid to question their own beliefs. So if they hold to their beliefs, then they are simply being coerced by fear.
    12. If one accepts that a creator god exists, then one must necessarily believe in any god (Christianity –> Islam).
    13. If God exists, he would have proven it to me in big red flashing letters; He has not, therefore He cannot exist.

27. Hey, Bo, don’t forget the guy that led the way in sequencing the human genome: Director of the Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis Collins, Christian believer in God as Creator.

28. One thing I forgot to mention is that ANYTHING ‘proven’ true about Christanity seems to be a threat (crack-in-the-door) to Boris’ beliefs; which shows vulnerability and irrationality. By simple reverse-engineering, then, ANYTHING proved historically true in the Bible could shake his iron-clad-shut analysis.
    This thread ‘proves’ who is more concerned about ‘learning’, with Boris contributing @ half the content.
    In Him, Ron M.

29. Furthermore, as this has become a sort-of Layman’s Guide to Arguing Law, the most recent FRC’s Ca. 9th District Court “Animi v Animus” Brief 🙂 shows how bias affects what sometimes seems to be a pre-determined verdict based on ‘clout’, if all Rule is Relative and based on Current Social Opinion, as Boris appears to be proposing. What value, then, does something like Vote have, if all ‘christians’ are defined as ‘stupid’ in someone’s book, and are disqualified as ‘riff-raff’ by default? Media brainwashing techniques would be just one of the ‘tools’ used as ‘persuasion’ if only the ‘elite’ (as defined by themselves) are allowed to ‘win’. Witness the Bush/Clinton (for lack of better terminology) controversy. But ‘see’ also how the Church is beginning to once again redefine itself as a Kingdom Apart from Politics, more concerned with Absolutes than ths shifting sands of temporary domain- a Role it paradoxically shares with Pure Science that can be as protagonistic as antagonistic, because “idols can do neither good nor evil” (Jeremiah).
    In Him, Ron M.

30. ron david metcalf
    If Boris could convince himself that we are all fools, … Yet, there is this nagging doubt that it doesn’t quite all add up, or else he would stop trying to convince us.

    Response: I’m not trying to convince you people of anything. I read and post comments on this blog for the same reason everyone else does: I listen to the show, or at least the second hour of it when I can and if the subject interests me. I’m not trying to de-convert anybody and I don’t want to be converted. There are several people who just cannot stick to the subject of the thread and feel they have try to convince me that their religious beliefs are valid. They should tell someone who cares because I don’t.

    GOD’s answers demand action.

    Response: So YOU say. However we atheists do not believe YOU or anyone else who claims to speak for God. In fact if there were a God trying to tell us something I doubt we’d hear or recognize it over the din of noise made by people all constantly speaking for their Gods.

    Matt B
    Boris, please show me your evidence for non-existence of god. Sorry, but given how many claim that he does, and how evident it is from creation, the atheist claims are just opinion in the absence of any type of evidence.

    Response: The things conservative Christians fight against the most are abortion, evolution and lately global warming. The reason is obvious. These things prove beyond a reasonable doubt that contrary to the claims of Christians God is definitely NOT in control. When you’ve proved that God is not in control you’ve given very good evidence that there is in fact no God. However it isn’t just a God you believe in. You believe in angels, demons, Satan and that these absurd bogey entities are actually fighting some kind of invisible cosmic war that somehow controls what goes on in the real world. You believe in an afterlife, heaven and hell. You believe people and animals die because the first two humans disobeyed God. Where’s the evidence for ANY of these things? Where do you get the nerve to say that atheist claims are just opinion in the absence of any type of evidence? You haven’t got a shred of evidence to support ANY of your beliefs.

    You have patently not demonstrated that secular humanistic morals are somehow superior, and those based on the teachings of Jesus Christ are inferior. I have given you evidence of the contrary. Your reply is…

    Response: It’s easy to say that I haven’t demonstrated my case when you simply ignore what I said which is exactly what you did. The humanist basis for morality is objective because it is based on the value of human life itself. This leads to a far more compassionate and rational system than that of a deity most of the world does not believe exists and whose whims cannot be understood and who is not constrained in any manner by the commands he gives to others. Your Christian morality is subjective to the extreme because it is established by a being of dubious existence and whose motives and nature are beyond human comprehension. This makes it impossible to discern any moral law beyond, “God wills it.” The commandment against murder in the Bible actually means, “Thou shalt not kill “except when I (God) tell you to do so.” Several times in the Old Testament, God ordered what we would now call “ethnic cleansing.” Saul was ordered to completely exterminate the Amelekites, including “men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys.” He lost his kingship and eventually his life because he failed to carry out these instructions from God to the letter. That is moral relativism at its starkest. Your reply is….

    Bo
    As for evolutionists…they just produce arguments and ideas and have not been able to demonstrate that live can come from non life and they have produced no experiment that shows one kind of organism turning into another. Evolution is a philosophy and a religion not science.

    Response: You might as well say Algebra is a religion. What is the purpose of studying evolution by natural selection? To debunk Christianity perhaps?

    ron david metcalf
    Witness Hawking’s (discredited) Black Hole theories as the most celebrated Modern Thought.

    Response: Are you saying black holes do not exist?

    At least 24 Christian colleges do not teach evolution according to this website:

    Response: That’s because they are all Bible colleges! None of them even have a science department.

    Bo
    Do these count as scientists that produced “something useful with their creation science”?

    Response: Are you kidding me? None of these scientists used any kind of creation “science.” A person could read the whole Bible and they still wouldn’t know how to make a shoe let alone do any of the things these men did. What I find amusing is how on the one hand we hear that a Christian, Francis Bacon, deserves the credit for inventing modern scientific method because it introduced the assumption of uniform natural law.
    Then the same people tell us that the assumption of uniform natural law is contrary to Christianity and is only made by atheists. Which is it Bo?

31. Euclid’s methods probably Were religion to his peers. That’s because measurement demands convention; ‘proving’ something involves a Standard of Agreement. And I am not saying black holes don’t exist; I’m saying that very soon Stephen Hawking won’t exist (by your standards); you still don’t ‘get it’.

    You have mentioned the Purging of the Promised Land several times. What is the ratio of Israel to the rest of the world? This is the tiny piece of real estate GOD demanded to be Pure, and that is all. You have shown your disdain for any concept of Absolute, or Pure, so our conversation is nearly at an end.

    Sporting events are pleasant & entertaining to those sitting on bleachers, but you are not a spectator; actors are applauded, but you are not a patron watching a play; this is deadly serious intervention; but you refuse to take anything seriously, except your own ‘smart’ answer to anything we might say, which is most often just demeaning and insulting, and hardly intelligent at all by normal standards of debate.

    Your delusion that you are winning when you are losing badly hinders you greatly; but the millisecond you admit that you are losing, you can begin winning. This is called Repentance.
    Sorry, but these are the Rules; & I didn’t make them.

    In Him, Ron M.

32. Your delusion that you are winning when you are losing badly hinders you greatly; but the millisecond you admit that you are losing, you can begin winning. This is called Repentance.
    Sorry, but these are the Rules; & I didn’t make them.

    Response: Yes but OTHER PEOPLE made those rules. Follow other people all you want. I don’t care.

33. Excellent ρost. I ωaѕ сhecκіng cоnstantly thіs
    blog anԁ I аm іmprеssed!
    Extremely useful іnfο paгticulaгlу the last pагt 🙂 I caгe fоr ѕuch infοrmation a lot.

    I was looking fοг this ceгtаіn information for а long time.
    Thank you аnԁ gοod luсk.

Comments are closed.