Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login | What's Hot
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons

Comment on: Reformation Man

Informational Cascade and the Genesis Flood

74 Comments
Tuesday, May, 05, 2009 10:34 PM WorldlyWiseMan writes:

genesis flood

So are you implying that the whole scientific community is wrong about the Genesis Flood? What do you think you know that they don’t know?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 05, 2009 11:08 PM ValiantForTruth writes:

Genesis record…


What if they do not believe? Will their unbelief nullify the Word of God? ‘Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true, though every man a liar’ [Romans 3:4].

God’s word does not return void; it accomplishes its purposes.

Apart from His gracious work of revealing Himself to men, then we would have become like the anti-diluvians and like Sodom, all of us consumed with wickedness, defenders of perversion and haters of righteousness.

Because of the covenant promises we are not consumed, but like Noah we wait patiently for our redemption while testifying to the grace of God in Christ Jesus.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 05, 2009 11:25 PM WorldlyWiseMan writes:

why?

Why are you so sure that there was a flood? And why do you make such a big deal of it?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, May, 06, 2009 12:23 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

flood

The legend of the flood is a worldwide one. Scientists are now realizing that there was at least a flood in that area of the world, and could have been a bigger one. I believe it was a worldwide flood since the legend is worldwide. Only one book says where the ark's location is, which happens to be on Mount Ararat. There are satellite photos you can find that show something that definitely looks manmade in the icy cap of Mount Ararat. There are photos that show there is a wooden vessel shaped anomoly with some wood exposed out of the ice. People can deny the flood all they want, but they can't explain away those pictures. There is definitely something there.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, May, 06, 2009 12:23 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

flood

The legend of the flood is a worldwide one. Scientists are now realizing that there was at least a flood in that area of the world, and could have been a bigger one. I believe it was a worldwide flood since the legend is worldwide. Only one book says where the ark's location is, which happens to be on Mount Ararat. There are satellite photos you can find that show something that definitely looks manmade in the icy cap of Mount Ararat. There are photos that show there is a wooden vessel shaped anomoly with some wood exposed out of the ice. People can deny the flood all they want, but they can't explain away those pictures. There is definitely something there.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, May, 06, 2009 9:13 AM ValiantForTruth writes:

Jesse on the Flood…


Thank you for this input.

Yes! I agree with you about the ancient cultures. All over the world there are flood legends. Here is an example from Dr. Brown’s book…

Chinese Word for Boat. Classical Chinese, dating to about 2500 B.C., is one of the oldest languages known. Its “words,” called pictographs, are often composed of smaller symbols that themselves have meaning and together tell a story. For example, the classical Chinese word for boat, shown above, is composed of the symbols for “vessel,” “eight,” and “mouth” or “person.” Why would the ancient Chinese refer to a boat as “eight-person-vessel”? How many people were on the Ark?

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/EarthSciences16.h tml


But what if the Ark was discovered on Ararat?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, May, 06, 2009 12:46 PM The Interface writes:

Ah, the argument...

...from consensus again, specious though it be. Mr. WWM has chosen his moniker well. If one checks history, one finds that the greatest breakthroughs have occurred with the prevailing "consensus" was bucked by one or a few scientists who dared to think outside the box. Truth is not determined by majority vote.

VfT: "If Noah’s flood was indeed a local flood, then the promise has been broken, because there are many local floods all over the world about every year." This is a strong argument for those who accept the authority of Scripture for a worldwide rather than local flood.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, May, 06, 2009 12:52 PM The Interface writes:

Another reason...

...to believe it was worldwide came to me as I studied the Hebrew in the passage. E.g., Gen 7:19, And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and *all* the high hills under the *whole* heaven were covered. Here and other places the language used makes it clear that it has to be a worldwide flood.

Lastly, as a scientist I have to ask, do we really have a firm grasp of what kind of evidence a worldwide flood would leave behind, and how would it differ from what we see in the data now? What role would plate tectonics have in the preservation or destruction of such evidence, and is plate tectonics itself described in "all the fountains of the great deep" being "broken up?"
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, May, 06, 2009 2:13 PM ValiantForTruth writes:

Interface…


Thanks always for your inputs.

Thanks for your good question. I think the “fountains of the deep” that you refer to are the subterranean waters separated by the firmament of Genesis 1 that was breeched and resulted in catastrophic and rapid plate movement. Are you familiar with the mid-Atlantic ridge?

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOvervie w3.html


What about the fossil record? Are you familiar with the science of liquefaction?

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Liquefaction2.htm l
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, May, 06, 2009 3:36 PM ValiantForTruth writes:

Noah’s Ark…


If the ark was found and verified to be thousands of years old, the neo-scientists would not be convinced. There is no evidence that will convince them that they are wrong. They are religiously invested in the belief that Genesis cannot be true, because their world view depends on it. The Genesis Flood must be discredited and suppressed because to give it credibility is the death of their theory and the death of all the supporting theories; they have built on a foundation of sand and have already given in to the irrational.

Jesus testifies to the truth of the Genesis account of Noah and uses it as an example of His coming again…

“As it was in the days of Noah, so it shall be at the coming of the Son of Man…” [Luke 17:26]

And with this the apostles agree…

‘Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men’ [2 Pet. 3:3-7].
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, May, 06, 2009 4:44 PM Jack writes:

Presumptuous

I know we've had this argument at some point or another Valiant, but I think it's worth reiterating. You're presuming an awful lot about the entire scientific community which is full of people you don't even know and making this broad assumption about all of them in how they work. They call themselves scientists for a reason. They use the scientific method. And the idea of fossils being a result of deposits from a global flood isn't rejected because it would put them at odds with their peers. It's rejected because the evidence doesn't support the conclusion. That's how science works. Whenever there is no evidence to support a conclusion, it gets thrown out.

Creationism and the Genesis Flood have been debunked numerous times and in numerous ways for decades. It is the creationists who are the dogmatic ones, not the scientists as you claim. They are the ones claiming their conclusion is correct by assuming it on faith and using Genesis as proof. But that's now how science works. That's how religion works. Science by its own design has to be objective. It cannot work on pre-assumed conclusions. It must follow the evidence and none of the evidence points to a global flood.

Quoting the ICR does not prove the point because it basically just attacked the peer review process. But peer review is an integral part of the scientific method. In order for a theory to be accepted, it must withstand scrutiny from others in order to explose flaws or biases. That is why science is a self correcting process. Creationism and religion is not. It's based solely on beliefs.

I know you still relegate these concepts you don't agree with as 'neo-science.' But again, this doesn't mean you're right. There are a lot of problems with the Noah story and there is evidence it was extrapolated from other myths around the Middle East. But there's no evidence that it's true anywhere outside the bible.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, May, 06, 2009 5:41 PM WorldlyWiseMan writes:

given to irrational?

What do you mean they have given in to the irrational? How can you deny the fossil record? Doesn’t it prove that evolution must be true?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, May, 06, 2009 6:15 PM ValiantForTruth writes:

Punctuated Equilibrium...


Why can we not observe macro-evolution in living things? We are told that the process is too slow to be observed. Why does the fossil record not show a continuum of change, rather than distinct and fully formed life forms? We are told that macro-evolution happens to quickly for the transitional forms to be captured in the record. This is the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium (PE).

PE is an irrational accommodation to Darwin’s theory because it invalidates the basic theory of gradual change that was to be proven in the fossil record. So, the fossils actually invalidate macro-evolution, because it shows over and over the sudden appearances of fully formed life. Don’t be deceived by the very few fossils that are said to be transitional; the theory requires billions of undisputed intermediate fossils that are absent from the record.

The much better science is that the geologic column is a record of the mass burial of contemporary life forms that were transported and buried in water sediments and sorted over time according to the science of liquefaction. Since the Flood was a catastrophic event, we would expect to see evidence of catastrophe and many exceptions in the record. This is the case for which Darwin and uniformitarianism has no answer.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, May, 06, 2009 6:55 PM WorldlyWiseMan writes:

What catastrophes?

Do you have any examples of catastrophes that are observable?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, May, 06, 2009 7:41 PM ValiantForTruth writes:

Ice Age...


These are some of the evidences of catastrophe that resulted directly from the Genesis Flood as did the Ice Age.

Frozen Mammoths
Grand Canyon
Mid-Atlantic Ridge
Ocean Trenches

These things testify to global flood’s destructive influence over the earth…

“…by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water’ [2 Peter 3:5-6 (NAS)].
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, May, 06, 2009 9:44 PM Jack writes:

Not Listening

Valiant, I have looked at your arguments and I have pointed out the fallacies. You have not done anything similar other than throw more appeals to ridicule and appeals to conspiracy. We had the Punctuated Equilibrium discussion in the past. It does fit into the theory of evolution because it follows the same tenants that populations (not organisms) evolve as their environment changes and induces new pressures. Sometimes the environmental change is rapid and those species that can evolve are able to do so because they have the necessary variation. It shows up quickly because the environment changes quickly. It does not invalidate the theory. Not all evolution has to be slow.

Time and again, the fossil record has proven evolution. I've listed constantly the transitional fossils that you never even try to debunk. I've mentioned australopithicus and ambulocitus (an a pre-cursor to whales) and then there are the ecto-raptors that are the precursors to modern turkeys. There are not 'few' transitional fossils as you stated. There are countless that extend to many different taxonomic branches, including humans. And at no point in the geological record has someone found a human with a T-Rex.

But I know this is all stuff you'll scoff off so I'll give you something specific. Look up the Karroo Formation in Africa, which is estimated to contain the remains of 800 billion vertebrate animals. How can that possibly be fit into the flood model without it breaking down? Please look into it because it does present a serious problem for creationism.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, May, 06, 2009 10:25 PM ValiantForTruth writes:

Karroo...


'But I know this is all stuff you'll scoff off so I'll give you something specific. Look up the Karroo Formation in Africa, which is estimated to contain the remains of 800 billion vertebrate animals. How can that possibly be fit into the flood model without it breaking down? Please look into it because it does present a serious problem for creationism.' -Jack

Ok, Jack, would you tell us why you think this presents a problem for the creation/flood model of the fossil record?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, May, 07, 2009 2:58 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Valiant

Getting to what you're saying about how many people were on the boat. The Bible said that there were two of every kind on the boat. It didn't say two of every animal. We just assumed that. As a matter of fact, the only two animals that were mentioned actually being in the ark was the raven and the dove. I do believe that there were other races of people on the ark. That would help the legend of the flood to become a worldwide one.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, May, 07, 2009 8:03 AM Jack writes:

Karroo

Valiant, here is an excerpt that explains why the Karrooo formation presents an insurmountable problem for the creation story.

Robert E. Sloan, a paleontologist at the University of Minnesota, has studied the Karroo Formation [in Africa]. He asserts that the animals fossilized there range from the size of a small lizard to the size of a cow, with the average animal perhaps the size of a fox. A minute's work with a calculator shows that, if the 800 billion animals in the Karoo formation could be resurrected, there would be twenty-one of them for every acre of land on earth." 1 That is, if all of the fossils of animals in the Karroo Formation had been alive at one time, were drowned during the flood of Noah, and ended up evenly spaced around the entire land surface of the earth, there would be 21 animals per acre. 2 A very conservative estimate is that there are about 100 fossils elsewhere on earth for each fossil in the Karroo Formation in Africa. Thus, assuming that all of these animals were evenly distributed, there would have been over 2,100 living animals per acre of land - "ranging from tiny shrews to immense dinosaurs" when the flood hit. This is clearly impossible.

To make the creation science story even more unlikely, only a small percentage of animals ever form fossils when they die. Assuming that 1 of each 1,000 land animals is fossilized, (an outrageously high number) then there would have been about 50 land animals per square feet of land wandering around at the time of Noah. The Earth would have been packed "wall-to-wall" with creatures. Animals would have been stacked on other animals to form multiple layers. Even if, as many creation scientists believe, the land area on earth Earth was much greater than it is today -- that is, closer to 100% than to 25% -- the number of animals alive at the time of Noah would have had to be enormous -- massively beyond the ability of the Earth to support.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, May, 07, 2009 9:14 AM ValiantForTruth writes:

Jesse on the Flood…


Thanks for your comments.

There is no need for us to accommodate the Biblical testimony regarding the Flood because Jesus Christ and His apostles affirmed it. Are you open to hearing another explanation about races and legends?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, May, 07, 2009 9:16 AM ValiantForTruth writes:

Jack on Karroo formation…


I am amused when the evolutionist tells us of ‘insurmountable problems’ in our model, but somehow can’t see those associated with his own model.

There’s a lot of assuming going on here, but I realize that’s what the neo-scientist does all the time. Before I answer you, please list for us the obvious assumptions and then tell us your explanation for the formulation.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, May, 07, 2009 9:32 AM Jack writes:

I Expect More

Valiant, I am sincerely disappointed in you. I like to believe that you're a reasonable man, but your response is nothing short of arrogant. I presented you one major flaw in the creationist theory and you just brushed it off with an appeal to ridicule, a fallacy if I'm not mistaken. You didn't even try to explain it. That's what I was looking for.

You're the one assuming more than the scientists. You're assuming the bible is true despite there being a mountain of evidence to the contrary. You're the one who is thumbing his nose at the scientific method by working backwards, assuming your conclusion before you see the evdience. Calling people who practice real science as misguided is just a blatant ad hominum attack.

As for the assumptions, they aren't just assumptions. They follow the known processes of fossilization. The Korroo bed contains a massive deposit of fossils that if one does the math, would put upwards of 800 billion animals on the planet. And then there's the known fact that fossilization is very rare when an animal dies. So if you extrapolate that you get too many animals for the carrying capacity of the planet. And this is just one formation. Take all the other fossil beds and the same principles and you run into a huge problem. There would simply be too many animals and too little resources for the 6000 to 10000 year timeframe.

Please look into this issue before scoffing at it because it is a valid criticism of the creation model you're championing.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, May, 07, 2009 11:42 AM ValiantForTruth writes:

Jack on expecting more…


Do scientists not consider their assumptions? Do they not consider the reasonableness of their assumptions and how much weight they will hold? How sensitive is your conclusion to your assumptions? Are these unreasonable questions?

Ok, I will list the assumptions in my answer. What is arrogant and unreasonable about asking for your explanation of the formation before I answer you? It seems to me that you are the one with the insurmountable problems. You raised this issue. Let’s hear your explanation, then I will answer you.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, May, 07, 2009 12:12 PM Jack writes:

More on Assumptions

Every assumption is considered in science. That is what peer review is for, something the quote you referenced clearly has no appreciation for. But these assumptions are not just wild speculation. They are understood as operating within the bounderies of what is known about the systems of their field. In the context of geology and fossils, the process of fossilization is understood as is the geological processes that go into areas like the Karroo formation. The creation model does not fit into what is understood because it is based on supernatural speculations about divine forces. And in science, the suprnatural is not allowed.

The reason I say it is unreasonable is that you're the one making an even bigger assumption by saying that what the bible says is true and the bible is not a science textbook. You can't call the reasoning of others flawed if you use that same reasoning yourself. That's just hypocritical. The essance of a valid conclusion in science is following the evidence to that conclusion and not discounting evidence just because it flies in the face of your preferred conclusion. Now you may argue I'm the one that's biased towards evolution or this 'neo-science' you keep throwing around. But I'm not the one claiming supernatural forces are behind it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, May, 07, 2009 2:00 PM ValiantForTruth writes:

Karroo assumptions 1…


Jack, as we shall see, Mr. Sloan, the neo-scientist from the University of Minnesota, has managed to ridicule a caricature of the creation/flood model. We must congratulate him on his ingenuity, turning a major problem for your model into an attack on us. But I think his concessions are not worth the perceived gains. Are you agreeing that fossil graveyards exist and can be found over the global? Which of our models is based on catastrophe and which is based on uniformitarianism?

A scientist should at least know what he is debunking before he begins to debunk. Did he ask for clarification from the creation scientists regarding his assumptions? Obviously, he did not because his purpose is not the discovery of truth, but to ridicule and in this case irrational ridicule.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, May, 07, 2009 2:03 PM ValiantForTruth writes:

Karroo assumptions 2…


1. He assumes the land mass of anti-diluvian earth is the same as present day earth. We cannot know the pre-flood surface area available for air breathers, but we can make estimates based on the creation model that it was much greater.

2. He assumes the number 800 billion is valid. This is an estimate.

3. He assumes that there are 100 fossils elsewhere on earth for each fossil in the Karroo Formation in Africa. This is an estimate.

His conclusion at the end of the first paragraph, “This is clearly impossible” is based a faulty assumption and two estimates. It is not clear at all.


The second paragraph starts off with this classic, “To make the creation science story even more unlikely, only a small percentage of animals ever form fossils when they die”. This is an assumption based on your model of uniformitarianism. Everything after that statement is pure nonsense. The flood model says that all air breathers perished except those on the Ark.

The final assumption that I will address is the inference captured in this statement: “the number of animals alive at the time of Noah would have had to be enormous -- massively beyond the ability of the Earth to support”. The assumption here is that pre-flood earth had the same life supporting potential as the earth today. There is direct evidence in the creation/flood model that contradicts this assertion.

Justification for my assertions will be included in my answer to you.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, May, 07, 2009 2:12 PM ValiantForTruth writes:

Still waiting…


Jack, I am waiting to hear your explanation for the Karroo fossil formation. Do you have one?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, May, 07, 2009 3:38 PM Jack writes:

Karroo Response

I'm sure Mr. Sloan would take offense for your use of the term 'neo-science' which isn't even a recognized term. If you made these arguments to him, you would completley lose all credibility. These fossil graveyards do exist. They are there and they can be observed. But they do not support a creation model. They support evolution because at no point in these graveyards are dinosaurs mixed with triolobites and humans are never seen with raptors. If they were from a single flood they should all be scattered, not in uniform layers that document the gradual transition from one species to another. It's the creationists who ingnore this, believing that a large collection of fossils supports a flood. They don't bother to check the details.

As for the assumptions, the argument about there being more land is even more ludicrous because there's no evidence in the geological record for it. It also presents more problems. A flood would have washed over everything equally, so terrestrial organisms should be roughly as abundant as aquatic ones. Yet shallow marine environments account for by far the most fossils.

On the 800 billion, that's factoring what is known about the formation of fossils and how rare it is. This is not an unreasonable assumption, especially given the many factors that go into preventing a fossil to being formed.

You still make far more lofty assumptions that the pre-flood world was different, but there's no tangible evidence that it was. If the environment was different it should reflect as such in rock core samples. It doesn't. It should also reflect when the rocks are dated. It doesn't. Such an environment should have left traces. It hasn't. That's why it's rejected and why it has no merit.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, May, 07, 2009 3:46 PM Jack writes:

Other Considerations

In addition to the problems the creation model has for the Karroo formation, your explanation has other holes in it. For one, if the flood is responsible for many of the fossils how do you explain the presence of limestone deposits. Roughly 1.5 x 1015 grams of calcium carbonate are deposited on the ocean floor each year. A deposition rate ten times as high for 5000 years before the Flood would still only account for less than 0.02% of limestone deposits.

There's also the issue of chalk, which is also composed of fossils. Chalk is largely made up of the bodies of plankton 700 to 1000 angstroms in diameter. Objects this small settle at a rate of .0000154 mm/sec. In a year of the Flood, they could have settled about half a meter.

And then there's the process of mineralization that fossils undergo. Buried skeletal remains of modern fauna are negligibly mineralized, including some that biblical archaeology says are quite old. For example, remains of Egyptian commoners buried near the time of Moses aren't extensively mineralized. Buried skeletal remains of extinct mammalian fauna show quite variable mineralization. Dinosaur remains are often extensively mineralized. Trilobite remains are usually mineralized. And in different sites, fossils of the same species are composed of different materials.

This is important to consider when looking at Karroo because if it was the result of one event, the mineralization process shouldn't be so varied. The effects of a global flood just are not there. The evidence doesn't support it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, May, 07, 2009 5:00 PM ValiantForTruth writes:

Uniformitarian nonsense…


Jack, I get that you nor Mr. Sloan understand the creation/flood model. All your conclusions based on uniformitarianism are nonsense.

The point of discussion is whether or not you have an explanation for the fossil formation at Karroo. If you do, then let’s hear it, then I will answer your objections.

If you don't have an explanation, then say so.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, May, 07, 2009 7:29 PM ValiantForTruth writes:

Waters of the Flood…


Jack, you have no explanation, but you are certain that Karroo is not flood related is that it?

You have no answer because these fossil graveyards cannot be explained apart from catastrophe. They speak of catastrophic events; millions of animals drowned and transported by water and buried suddenly in sediments. Since they are observed all over the globe they speak to a global catastrophe as in a global flood as in the one of ancient legends as in the one described in Genesis.

The Genesis Flood was catastrophic beyond our imagination. Uniformitarian principles derived from present day processes do not apply to this event.

Where did the water come from? What is meant by the ‘fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened’ [Genesis 7:11]? There is good evidence that the Mid-Atlantic ridge is related to the catastrophic escape of the subterranean waters. The continental erosion that occurred from these fountains provided the source for the sediment materials that overwhelmed the air breathers. The year long flood provided time for the liquefaction sorting of the many fossil laden sediments.

The massive erosion and the release of the waters resulted in a significant reduction in above sea level surface area.

Longevity of the antediluvians and giantism observed in the fossil record speak to the earth’s greater capacity to support life in the antediluvian world.

For any reader interested in these things, Walt Brown’s online book is @ creationscience.com. We recommend his work as an example of a real scientist doing real science.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, May, 07, 2009 8:13 PM Jack writes:

Dodging the Question

I'm not asking you to respond to uniformatism. I'm asking you to respond to my specific points about the Karroo formation. You're dodging the question with a red herring. And you're ignoring my points. I do have an explanation for the formation. It's the same one agreed upon by all legitimate science that doesn't evoke the supernatural. The fossils were deposited because of thick layers of sandstone being laid out constantly over millions of years. And in the absence of igneous intrutions and a stable region, the fossils accumulated over times.

It's a basic rule of geology. You don't find fossils in metamorphic or igneous rock. So where there are areas of thick sandstone undisturbed by other forces, you get more fossils. And since the fossils are arranged in a clear order from older species being at the bottom and more recent species at the top, it's a strong indicator of the evolutionary theory.

There's no evidence outside of Genesis that there was a global flood. I've hard that argument about underground water and there's a big problem with it. Water of that volume cannot be contained in rock because rock is a very poor water carrier. The heat from the inner planet alone would have boiled it off in the early formation of the Earth and there would be evidence of vast caverns from where the water once was, but there isn't. And large shifts of sea level would have left traces on the coasts. And any massive shifting in continental shelves would create so much heat it would boil the oceans off. It's simple thermodynamics. You can't have that much upheaval in the earth without tearing it apart.

I have looked over these creation science materials and time and again, they have the same fallacies. They present no evidence to back up their claims and their full of fallacies, the most egregious of which is putting supernatural forces in science. That by default disqualifies their inquires and renders it speculation.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, May, 08, 2009 12:39 AM ValiantForTruth writes:

Jack on willingly ignorant…


The fossil graveyards are a testimony to men of the global flood and of the consequence of rebellion and sin; a warning to flee from the wrath to come...

‘Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation [the principle of uniformitarianism].

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.’ [2 Peter 3:4-7]
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, May, 08, 2009 7:29 AM Jack writes:

Dodging the Question Again

You did not address my question, Valiant. Nor did you offer any reasonable explanation for what I presented in regards to fossil graveyards. I'll reiterate. Fossil beds like that of Karroo are comprised largely of sedimentary rocks. And only sedimentary rocks can contain fossils because metamorphic and igneous rock involve too much pressure and heat to allow for proper mineralization. What makes Karroo and other beds like it unique is that there is an absence of metamorphic deposits and igneous intrusions, allowing large numbers of fossils to be deposited over time and in the proper evolutionary order. There are still no trilobites in the same layers as modern birds. That doesn't follow the nature of a global flood.

Also, going on about how the flood was a punishment for sin is a non-sequiter. I already know the story. That doesn't provide any substance to this argument. Claiming that those who don't believe the creation model are willingly ignorant is again an appeal to conspiracy. The creation model has been subjected to the scientific method time and again and it has failed. It failed even before Darwin's time as a better understanding of life, geology, and climate systems emerged from more objective, non-supernatural explanations. Just because the creation model failed doesn't mean the scientific method is flawed. It just means the creation model is flawed. That's how science works. It weeds out flawed theories and accepts proven ones. Evolution has passed that test time and again without evoking the supernatural.

You can believe whatever you want, but if you want your creation theory to stand on the same level as evolution it has to pass the test of the scientific method. If it can't pass, then it can't be accepted by science.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, May, 08, 2009 9:00 AM ValiantForTruth writes:

Jack…


You cannot be saved and seek after the approval of men in your peer reviews. Repent and believe the gospel.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, May, 08, 2009 9:13 AM Jack writes:

Another Non-Sequiter

"You cannot be saved and seek after the approval of men in your peer reviews. Repent and believe the gospel."

How does that respond to any of the points I made? And did you just threaten me? Abandon a known and proven tenant or science or burn? Talking fire and brimstone is okay in churchs, but it isn't proof of anything in regards to the discussion we're having. If I'm interpreting this right, you're saying men are too flawed to be trusted because they are sinned. So you don't trust anything that doesn't have the stamp of approval from the gospels? Am I correct?

That's still skewed logic. You're using more esoteric rhetoric and supernatural influxes to make points. But you can't expect to pass them off as reasonable when they are by definition opposed to the very nature of reason. I understand this is what you believe. And you're free to believe it just as others are free to believe whatever creation story they want about the world. But when you make a claim about it and pass it off as truth, you can't apply the same logic. If I make such a claim, I have to use reason to prove it. If I make a claim purely on faith, that's not proving it. That's just me stating what I believe.

To put creationism and evolution in the same league, it's necessary to use the same standards. One cannot have exceptions. Creationism isn't allowed to use miracles and supernatural forces if evolution can't use it either. That's why they don' thave equal merit. One is steeped in religion. The other is steeped in science. That's why they can't compete with each other. They're not even the same thing.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, May, 08, 2009 11:39 AM WorldlyWiseMan writes:

fountains?

What are you saying about the subterranean waters and the fountains of the great deep being broken up?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, May, 09, 2009 11:23 AM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

Professing Christians

"There are men who try to reconcile the irreconcilable. These are professing Christians..."-Vft

"Apart from His gracious work of revealing Himself to men, then we would have become like the anti-diluvians and like Sodom, all of us consumed with wickedness, defenders of perversion and haters of righteousness."-Vft

Wonderful quotes. In the former, it is always frustrating that those professing Christians even feel the need to accomodate the godless. Why not just stand firm on the Word of God? Because they do not know the Word of God.
The Bible says:

1 Corinthians 1:30
But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption

I believe the answers to all questions are in the Word of God-all wisdom, if we were given the eyes to see it. It is really that simple, but some of the learned would try and complicate the simple. Paul said if we think we are wise, let us become fools that we may be wise (1 Cor 3:18).
It is foolish to the world that we believe such "myths", and aren't inclined to accept their "rational" explanation instead. Then, because of our "dogmatic" views, they accuse us of bigotry, arrogance, or our percieved "extra authority". What they really do is prove the veracity of the Scripture:

Matthew 5
10Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

What is more righteous than standing on and defending the Word of God?

Be strong, believers, believe and defend Him-for if we do, He won't be ashamed of us before the Father.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, May, 09, 2009 12:43 PM ValiantForTruth writes:

Chiefest...


Welcome back; you have been missed.

Do I understand what you meant?

By the grace of God we stand on the words of Christ. He is the High King of heaven and earth and will defend us who testify to His authority, or He will give us the grace necessary to suffer persecution. Either way His will is good and right as testified by the friends of Daniel when they faced the fire.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, May, 10, 2009 12:18 AM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

Vft

After your question, I read my comments over, (and yours also) and see no disconnect.

I am confused about what you may have thought I meant.

Are we not in agreement?

"Those that compromise the doctrine of a global Genesis Flood may not realize that a local flood theory amounts to demeaning the integrity of God."-Vft
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, May, 10, 2009 12:22 AM Jack writes:

One Problem Chiefest

I'm not sure if you're discriminating between the bible and the Word as you call it. Because the bible, being a book of the Bronze Age, is full of things we know in modern times to be wrong. You can defend beliefs all you want because beliefs are not subject to truth. But you can't defend something that has been proven to be wrong. Many parts of the Genesis story, the global flood, and the Noah story have been disproven time and again not just by science, but by scholars of all types that study the context in which the story was written.

And to say the bible contains all knowledge is more a spiritual statement. Not to take it too literally, but I don't see anything in the bible about cell theory, quantum mechanics, special relativity, etc. It's not meant to be a book of knowledge in the literal sense. It's meant to be a book of spiritual knowledge to believers. As a non-believer, I'm going to interpret it differently. As a believer, it will be different to you as well. Only difference is, I don't claim it to be truth or supernatural.

And there's a good reason why Christians should not shun non-Christians with dogma. History has shown that when groups of any kind become stubborn in their beliefs and look down on others, it creates bigotry, intolerance, and in some cases all out war. If Christianity is supposed to be a religion of peace, why should it propagate behaviors that foster it? If it's not a religion of peace, that's a different story. But nobody is asking Christians to abandon their beliefs. They are just asked not to impose their beliefs on others.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, May, 10, 2009 1:32 AM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

Switch-jack

2 Thessalonians 2
10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness


John 17:17
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.


Study the Word (the Bible) in whatever context your natural heart can dream up, jack. I'll study with the unction (1 John 2:20) John talked about. Love the Truth, jack, and turn away from lies that doom the souls of the unbeliever.

Maybe we'll meet in line at the judgement, before the goats are separated to the left and the sheep to the right; before the goats go into everlasting punishment (Matt 25:46).

Switch lines while you can, jack.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, May, 10, 2009 1:38 AM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

jack

"To put creationism and evolution in the same league, it's necessary to use the same standards...They're not even the same thing."-jack

Now you're catching on. One is Truth and the other is lies.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, May, 10, 2009 9:17 AM ValiantForTruth writes:

Chiefest a defender of the faith…


“Be strong, believers, believe and defend Him-for if we do, He won't be ashamed of us before the Father.”-Chiefest

I am sensitive to the word defend; so that is what my comments were about. I see no disagreement; you are an able defender of the faith; that’s the way I understood your comment.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, May, 10, 2009 9:42 AM Jack writes:

Non Sequiter Again

I'm not sure what you intend to prove by throwing bible quotes at me and dogmatically claiming you have the truth and everything else is a lie. Other than proving your own conceit, I don't see anything of substance. I love the truth as much as anybody, but beliefs are not truth. For something to be true, there needs to be proof. Ridged dogma is not proof of anything.

And again you threaten me? Turn away or be doomed like other unbelievers? I should be used to this now, but I would hope you would at least learn some manners in the process of our discourse. I guess I was wrong. If there's one thing history has shown it's that threats rarely inspire devotion. It inspires only fear and tyranny, two things Jesus himself stood against. So in a ways, you are doing the very opposite of what Jesus preached.

And Valiant, I'm not surprised you defend chiefest. People always defend those who agree with them. But it's worth noting that being around only like-minded people only reinforces ridged dogma and inspires more isolation among groups. And when that happens, bigotry and prejudice often emerge against outgroups.

As for me, I'm not here representing a group or a set of ideology. I don't speak for atheists. I don't speak for non-Christians. I don't speak for science, evolution, or anything of that nature. I speak for me as an individual. I am not pushing someone else's agenda. I have no desire to become ridged or narrow minded in my beliefs. I desire to be challenged and sometimes even disproven. And any response is not an attack on you or other Christians as a whole. It's a response to you as an individual. That's it. That's the truth.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, May, 10, 2009 10:05 AM ValiantForTruth writes:

Jack & proof…


The Bible does tell us about created kinds that reproduce after their kind. The Bible does tell us about a global flood that destroyed the world. It tells us of the heavens being stretched out like a curtain. And what proofs have you brought to refute it? Your latest from Mr. Sloan is proof that you do not understand the creation/flood model. You try to interpret it in your world view and it doesn’t fit. And you are right. We readily admit that it doesn’t fit. You cannot interpret these past events based on present day processes. That is your fatal error.

When men reject the Biblical framework of creation and flood and become autonomous in their thinking, just look for a moment what that has given us. Men first deny God, then they deny His creation, then they deny design and purpose, then they deny accountability and judgment, then they become lawless, then God gives them over to their vain reasonings to demonstrate that autonomy leads to destruction.

Jack, we are not imposing our beliefs on anyone; we are testifying to the truth as we understand it from the revealed truth given in the Logos, the Word of God. Now, who is really trying to impose their beliefs? Is it not the neo-scientists and the radical sodomites and their defenders?

What you refuse to acknowledge is that these things are related and based on the false religion of naturalism, which is intolerant of any other world view and is our greatest threat to liberty in America. It is greater than radical Islam because it is more subtle and deceptive. The evil one has more than one mode of attack. Yes, I am saying that your world view is of the father of lies, ever much so as the openly false religion of Islam.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, May, 10, 2009 10:23 AM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

fear-jack

"It inspires only fear and tyranny, two things Jesus himself stood against. So in a ways, you are doing the very opposite of what Jesus preached."-jack


The "fear" that Jesus preached:

Matthew 10:28
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

As it was understood by the Apostles and those after them:

Jude
22And of some have compassion, making a difference:

23And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, May, 10, 2009 3:09 PM Jack writes:

Again Valiant

You're right. The bible does say a global flood destroyed the world, a guy named Noah built an ark, and that the heavens are stretched out like a curtain. And it's wrong.

The creation model you've been citing has been disproven. I've studied it. I've looked at all the materials you've given me. And it does not pass the scientific test. There are too many problems with it that aren't explainable without evoking supernatural forces. It goes against what is known about biology, chemistry, physics, and cosmology. I've given you proofs time and again like the Karroo formation. And then there's the supervolcano eruptions you never addressed. Look up Toba and the Yellowstone supervolcano. That can do plenty to disprove the creation model because the results of these forces would have done damage almost on the scale of a global flood.

Men that accept evolution are not somehow wicked or rejecting god. That's a stereotype based on dogma and prejudice. Evolution is a product of science, something that cannot be infused with religion because it science by its own design must reject supernatural forces otherwise it isn't science. And science has brought a lot of benefits to humanity. The mere fact you have food to eat and a computer to use is a testament to what science has to offer. And the medicine that saves our lives could never have been derived were it not for evolution.

The thing is there is no such thing as 'neo-science' so they do not impose any beliefs. Science can only present theories with evidence and those that have good evidence get accepted. Those that that don't like the creation model and the geocentric universe are rejected. It has nothing to do with imposing beliefs, it has everything to do with accepting theories that are right over those that are wrong.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, May, 10, 2009 3:18 PM Jack writes:

One more thing

I also fail to see how certain Christian ideologues keep espousing this idea that there's a religion called 'naturalism.' That would be an utter oxymoron. Religion needs supernatural forces or it isn't a religion. Christianity is religion because god is a supernatural force. Naturalism is just something Christians and fundamentalist Jewish and Muslim ideologues make up to put everything they don't like about the secular world under one roof and condemn it. It's basically one gigantic straw man argument that is wrong.

How can you call someone like me, who accepts an objective non-supernatural viewpoing, of being intolerant? You and Chiefest are the ones tell me to accept your god and your narrow interpretation of the bible or burn in hell. You also tell a lot of lies about people like me who don't believe as you do. You call people like me intolerant, deprived, decadent, and what not. I do take offense to it, but I have a sense of humor about it. I try not to call you any names. I sometimes call you and Chiefest arrogant for believing you're right and everybody else is wrong. But I don't insult you. It's your claims that are flawed, not your beliefs.

"I am saying that your world view is of the father of lies, ever much so as the openly false religion of Islam."

Really Valiant? Lies? Another appeal to conspiracy? I think you're above this sort of thing my friend. Same to Chiefest. Nobody lies in these debates. You believe you're telling the truth every bit as much I believe I'm telling the truth. Only difference is, you're using god and the bible as proof. I'm pointing out the fallacies and offering whatever proof I can that isn't supernatural in nature. Reject if if you want. I really don't care because I know you're not going to change and neither is Chiefest. But if you make a claim that is wrong, it's right to point it out even if you don't like me or my beliefs.

Take care.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, May, 10, 2009 4:11 PM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

fairy tales-jack

"Men that accept evolution are not somehow wicked or rejecting god. That's a stereotype based on dogma and prejudice."jack

Really jack. It occurs to me that you are too free with your term "religion". There are a lot of religions in the world, and they do not have to be supernatually based as you falsely claim (see "religion" in the dictionary).
The Word that is preached here, if mixed with faith (Heb 4:2), is eternal salvation and will save an unbelievers soul from judgment at the hands of the Living God. That is a fearful thing.(Heb 10:30-31).

Furthermore, true Christianity has never advocated another way to God, and is intolerant in that regard. Is it a big thing, then, that its followers should be intolerant of other religions?
The only way to eternal life and to the Father is through Jesus Christ. Therefore we say, because it is written:

Matthew 12:30
He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

Luke 16:13
No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other...

Romans 6:16
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?


So yes, if you do not believe the Gospel you believe lies made of the father of liars, and are flawed; doomed to eternal hell-all according to the Word of God.



Romans 3
3For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

4God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written...

It is not a "narrow interpretation". It couldn't be more plain-read it yourself.

If this is all the FAIRY TALE you claim, why then would that bother you so much????

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, May, 10, 2009 6:25 PM Jack writes:

Definition of Religion

I am not being overly liberal with my definition Chiefest. This is what dictionary.com gave:

Religion:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

The rest of the definition was a variation of this first statement. Notice it has the term "superhuman agency or agencies" in it. That denotes a force beyond nature or human capacity, in other words supernatural. Any religion without a supernatural force is not a religion, it would probably fit more in the realm of philosophy or belief.

What you say about eternal salvation and the soul is an appeal to this "superhuman agency" which by definition makes it a religion, something that is beyond reason, logic, or any other kind of rational substance and only applicable to those who are pre-disposed to believing it. This is why it is belief and not truth.

And thanks for proving my point about Christianity being intolerant. That way whenever someone claims it is a religion of peace and love, I can immediately identify them as hypocrites. People are free to be intolerant in a free society so long as they don't impose on others. I can see you are intolerant and that's fine. At least you're honest.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, May, 10, 2009 8:42 PM Ed writes:

Playing with words

There are people who "worship" money. Money is THE most important thing in their lives. They will do anything, and everything, to get as much of it as they can. Money is their god. They are slaves with a golden chain.

The same is true of other things. Baseball used to be my god, years ago. It was the most important thing in my life. More important than my job. More important than family. more important than God. It hurts to admit this, but it's true. And it's true for others. Where your heart is is where you worship.

Stop playing with words.

When I see Valiant reference the religion of naturalism I see it a little differently. I see it as something that reared-it's-ugly-head about 20 years ago : the new paganism. And it's alive and well today.

At least the old-paganism recognized that there was something greater than man. It may have apollo, or it may have been a cow. The new paganism has divinized man. Laws and morals and values are not written in our hearts, they are created BY people. Creatures have made themselves creators. Right and wrong are turned upside-down.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, May, 10, 2009 8:46 PM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

read again -jack

"Any religion without a supernatural force is not a religion, it would probably fit more in the realm of philosophy or belief."-jack

You fail to read on or to understand the other possible definitions of the word "religion":

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience...

I made the attempt to distinguish between religion and salvation; explaining that there is no salvation in any other name, than Jesus Christ-the many religions of the world notwithstanding.

Your reference to "peace" in regards to Christianity, is a confused one, as natural man is wont to do. Jesus promised Christians the sword (Matt 10:34), yet He also gave us peace unlike that of the world (John 14:27)-unlike that you are familiar with and apply here incorrectly.

"What you say about eternal salvation is...only applicable to those who are pre-disposed to believing it. This is why it is belief and not truth."-jack

Again, I must correct your error. This is the absolute Truth; not the relative kind of truth that the world, and those in it, are accustomed to today. Your lack of belief does not negate the promises of God as even you will give account according to the scriptures:

Romans 14:
11For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

12So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

It is ultimately because of this promise, that we must testify of the Truth in love, as we do here; we cannnot be tolerant of sin. Toleration of sin is a DISSERVICE to the sinner, perhaps encouraging him in his evil way and even partaking in the damnation of his soul (Ez 33:6).

Toleration would also make us liars; when we know the Truth that can deliver every one that comes to Him, why would we not warn others?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 11, 2009 12:08 AM ValiantForTruth writes:

Ed & Chiefest…


Thank you men for your inputs. I can’t tell you now how much. Let us continue together in prayer.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 11, 2009 9:26 AM Jack writes:

To Ed

Nice to hear from you again. It's been a while. I understand there are people who worship money. I also am well aware people worship sports teams. I have some of those in my family and I've met Eagle and Steelers fans. Make no mistake, they know devotion every bit as much as a professing Christian. But there are significant differences.

Christianity and religion in general espouses a moral and ritualistic worldview about reality based on spiritual beliefs and supernatural forces. It's not always about a god. New Age, Buddhism, and Shintoism don't have 'god' per se. But they do have spirits that are assumed to be influcencing current affairs and believed solely on faith.

In regards to science, which this issue has been revolving around, you don't see scientists adulating their work the way Eagles fans adulate the Eagles or Red Sox fans adulate the Red Sox. It may seem that way when you don't like what they do, but adulation and worship goes against scientific principles. If a scientist were to worship their work, they would be unable to make it through the peer review process because in peer review all research and evidence is broken down and sometimes heavily criticized to the point of rejection. So the worship Chiefest and Valiant proclaim really isn't conducive to the scientific process.

Nowhere does anybody say man is not flawed in science. Most scientist will now worship man. They'll point out his flaws. And he has many, but he has many good qualities as well. But science does not judge good and bad. It simply observes. Judgements are left to the individual.

The whole idea of naturalism itself is an oxymoron because it never truly exists outside the minds of those who don't like or understand science. It's a convenient term and the human mind, especially when it comes to prejudice, latches onto convenience.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 11, 2009 9:32 AM Jack writes:

Chiefest

I mentioned already that I understand there are more definitions to the term religion. But the context in which you and Valiant use the term fits with the first one, not the sixth one. If you were to assault those guilty of the sixth definition you wouldn't just have to condemn these ficticious science religions. You would have to condemn those who are devoted to anything. Just try and do that to a Steelers fan, a Red Sox fan, or god forbit and Eagles fan. lol You'll be lucky if you get out in one piece.

But the idea that no salvation can come from anywhere other than Jesus Christ is a tenant of religion because Jesus himself is a spiritual figure just like the many spiritual figures of the past from Moses to Buddah.

In regards to absolute truth, you're still mixing the terms again. The truth is the truth regardless of belief. Gravity is true regardless of whether you believe it or not. Christianity, however, cannot be proven to be true so it can't be put in the same context of truth. That's just the nature of truth. As I've pointed out before, belief no matter how strong is not truth. It is belief.

In regards to tolerating sin, I'm afraid you really have no choice here in America. Freedom and liberty in a society will foster sin no matter how much you hate it. That's the nature of freedom. People will drink, eat, and be merry so long as they have the freedom to do so. If you don't wish to be surrounded by it, then maybe America isn't for you.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 12, 2009 12:28 PM Ed writes:

Jack

Yes, it's been awhile. I hope you are well.

I'm not ignoring your comment; I've been busy with work, and qwith things around the house (it's grass cutting and hedge trimming season). But I do want to be honest: I do have reservations about responding. One thing is for certain : I will not "engage" in "stuff" thats on it's eleventy-eighth go'round - I do not have the time.

BTW , I'm NOT an Iggles (eagles) fan.

Have to go to work. Take care.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, May, 13, 2009 11:17 AM Jack writes:

Ed

I understand completely. It is getting to be that time of year again when you have to start doing yardwork. I don't want to waste too much of your time, but I would still like to try and make my points clear.

In the history of Christianity, believers have scorned anybody who adulates something more than god. Whether they adulate money, lust, food, or the Philidelpha Eagles, it's what distracts people from their Christian duties that religious leaders have historically condemned.

There are those who make the claim that people worship these distractions in the same way they worship god. That is simply not the case because to worship a religious figure is different than to worship something in the real world. Religion in the context of this argument relies on a divine figure like god or Christ. Science and the study of life relies on an understanding (not worship) of natural phenomena. To say those that accept parts of science worship nature is to misunderstand what is going on. True nature worship includes religions like New Age, animism, and Shintoism to an extent.

I hope this clears things up. I appreciate your input.

Take care,
Jack
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, May, 16, 2009 12:11 PM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

Pilgrims-jack

jack, I quoted the appropriate definition of religion. It deals with those who worship idols, instead of God, thus making the point I (and Vft if I could speak for him) intend to make. To devote yourself to anything more than God, makes God second and a man an idolator.

"Christianity, however, cannot be proven to be true so it can't be put in the same context of truth."-jack

It was proven true by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the tomb, just as He foretold:

1 Corinthians 15:1-8
6After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

And it continues to be proven true by all those who ACCEPT Him; for they experience a changed heart and life with the Spirit of God bearing witness (Rom 8:16).

"In regards to tolerating sin, I'm afraid you really have no choice here in America...then maybe America isn't for you.
"-jack

Am I to infer here that I cannot associate with whom I please? Would you force me to associate with the perverse and Godless? Is a continuing removal of that freedom really what you propose?

John 17:15
I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

jack, all believers are in reality just pilgrims, seeking for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God (Heb 11:10).
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, May, 16, 2009 5:14 PM Jack writes:

Same Problems

I mentioned this earlier to Gary, Chiefest. People idolize a lot of things, but that doesn't necessarily make it a religion in the context you or Valiant mentioned. I mentioned sports teams and there is a parallel. Go to Detroit and talk to hockey fans. They'll show you devotion. Go to Boston and meet Red Sox fans. Go to Philadelphia and talk to Eagles fans. Go to Dallas and talk to Cowboy fans. Or in my area, go to DC and talk to Redskins fans. You'll see some serious worship and devotion. You'll see people idolizing players, worshiping coaches, and basing so many beliefs and behaviors off of it. See "Hail to the Redskins" or the Eagles song. But that doesn't make them religious in the same way Christianity is.

And saying Christianity is proven by Jesus's resurrection is again not proof. That's another statement of faith. People say the same thing about the Buddha (who was a real historical figure too) and how people witnessed him attaining enlightenment under a tree. But does that make Buddhism true? You can't prove the supernatural. That's why it needs faith. That's what Christianity has as any other religion.

And I'm not saying you have to associate with people you don't want to. I was merely saying that the stuff you rail against here as wrong and corrupt can't be wiped out because in a free society people will choose to do them. People will gamble, drink, and be merry whether you like it or not. To really ever change that is to go against the notion of freedom. You can hang around anybody you want, but don't expect the world to go along with your point of view just as I don't expect you or anybody here for that matter to go along with mine. That's what a free society is at heart.

Take care,
Jack
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, May, 16, 2009 5:43 PM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

salvation not religion-jack

I reiterate:

To devote yourself [or to worship] to anything more than God, makes God second and a man an idolator.


It doesn't make any difference if you call it religion or worship, by definition it is.

It is only thru Jesus Christ that a man finds SALVATION within religion, regardless of what he thinks he has found in others. And if the salvation of eternal life is not the end result, what point is there to any religion?

1 Corinthians 15:32
...what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, May, 16, 2009 5:51 PM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

changed heart-jack

"And I'm not saying you have to associate with people you don't want to. I was merely saying that the stuff you rail against here as wrong and corrupt can't be wiped out because in a free society people will choose to do them. People will gamble, drink, and be merry whether you like it or not."-jack

Exactly the reason for the new covenant:

(Hebrews 8:7-12);Jeremiah 31:
31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.


God recognizes people will do only what is in their heart. It is this heart that He changes through Jesus Christ.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, May, 16, 2009 11:34 PM Jack writes:

Now Pushing the Point

I understand the concept of idolatry Chiefest. Nearly every Eagles and Red Sox fan is guilty of it. I was merely responding to the claims made by you and Valiant in stating that naturalism or 'neo-science' or whatever other blanket term you give stuff you don't like doesn't constitute an opposing religion. Saying it does is just ignoring context and playing with semantics.

And I'm not sure what you are intending to prove with your second post. Whenever you quote mine the bible to make your point, not only is the point not clear it's not even made with valid arguments. I've said it before and I'll keep saying, your ability to quote mine religious texts doesn't prove your point any more than your ability to cut and paste on a computer. The idea that men are flawed and faith in Christ converts them in their hearts is still a statment of faith and belief. It has no basis in truth or reality. You're free to believe it as you wish, but no matter what you say or how much you quote mine that isn't going to make it any more valid than the Buddhist saying the same thing for the same reasons.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, May, 17, 2009 7:09 AM Ed writes:

Jack

I have to disagree with you on your post to Chiefest where you say, "the idea that men are flawed and faith in Christ converts them in their hearts is still a statement of faith and belief. It has no basis in truth or reality".

Jack, the reality is there. It can be seen. Paul is an obvious example. But you don't accept Scripture. Another obvious example, outside Scripture, would be Dr. Nathanson (the former abortion doctor). Another obvious example would be the woman in the Roe v Wade case. The truth and reality is that she and Dr. Nathanson were both pro abortion on demand supporters. Both had a change of heart.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, May, 17, 2009 10:27 AM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

re:another religion-jack

But it does, jack. It is idolatry and hedonism, a worship of the creature and not the creator. This is what Romans 1 refers to.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, May, 17, 2009 10:31 AM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

re: second post-jack

You are correct that in the absence of God abiding in a person's heart that person will do whatever is right in his own eyes.

My point is that acceptance of Christ as Saviour changes the heart. It is the promise of God of the new covenant. If the heart is not changed, then Christ has never truly been accepted.

It is a life-changing experience:

Matthew 22:14
For many are called, but few are chosen.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, May, 17, 2009 2:20 PM Jack writes:

To Chiefest

I said it before Chiefest, I know what idolatry is. But you were implying anything idea, knowledge, or fact that embraces natural explanations of reality are somehow a separate religion. That is not true. Science, artists, and philosophers don't worship their work anymore than you worship a sports team. It is a passion and a curiosity, not some antithesis to your religion.

And if you're going to talk idolatry, couldn't it be argued that idolizing the bible and deifying it as if it were god is a form of idolatry? I have met Christians who make this argument about how biblical literalism constitutes worshiping a book, not god. When words and pages become your god, then isn't that by definition hypocritical to condemn idolatry?

As for acceptance of Christ, the change in a person is no different than anybody who changes as a result of religion. I know this personally because I studied this phenomena in psychology on a college level. These changes you speak of are a testament to the power of belief, the same power that allows someone to be hypnotized or believe they can overcome physical pain. I don't doubt that it is a powerful feeling, but it has been measured. The same thing happens to Buddhists who claim to have reached enlightenment. It's still a personal, subjective feeling and one that means different things to different people.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, May, 17, 2009 2:25 PM Jack writes:

To Ed

The reality you speak of Ed, is still assumed on faith. You're assuming Paul on his word and like any word from any figure speaking about the supernatural, you just have to assume it. There's no logic behind it. It's all based in belief. And belief can't be right or wrong. That's why it's a belief.

In regards to those who had a change in heart, that's not solely driven by religion. People go through changes throughout their lives and latch onto anything that will guide them whether it is religion or a sports team. Someone going from pro-choice to pro-life is no different than a Red Sox fan becoming a Yankees fan or Cowboy fan becoming a Redskins fan. It does happen, but for personal reasons that have nothing to do with a supernatural force. The supernatural can be used to justify it, but that still requires belief and belief remains a subjective, illogical force.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, May, 17, 2009 4:34 PM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

re:idolatry-jack

"I said it before Chiefest, I know what idolatry is. But you were implying anything idea, knowledge, or fact that embraces natural explanations of reality are somehow a separate religion. That is not true. Science, artists, and philosophers don't worship their work anymore than you worship a sports team. It is a passion and a curiosity, not some antithesis to your religion."-jack

You're own words indicate that you DON'T know what idolatry really is, because what you state as "not true" is truth, indeed. Anything that one reverences more than God is an idol. I, and others, have tried to make that point clear, but you still refuse to accept it.

As far as the Bible goes, Jesus said His words were "spirit and life". It is not about the pages on which the words are written, but the Word itself.

As far as Buddists and thier so called enlightenment (or other false doctines), I really don't have a clue; but if I measure this against the Word of God, they evidently are decieved for the only way to God and eternal life is thru Jesus Christ the Son. All others will eventually die the eternal death described many times and in many places in the Bible.

The change that occurs with salvation (notice I didn't say religion) is not subjective, but a reality indeed. For example, how else could a murderer like Paul be turned from his wicked ways and become, what some may even describe, as possibly the greatest Apostle? This transformation can occur for anyone who would be fully persuaded and accept Christ as thier personal Saviour.

Acts 26:14
... why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, May, 17, 2009 9:44 PM Jack writes:

Missing the Definition

You say that what I say is "not truth" is truth? Chiefest, you can't keep making these claims and not backing it up without anything other than your beliefs. I get it. You believe Jesus is the only way and everybody else is wrong and misguided. But your beliefs can't be taken as truth because they are beliefs, plain and simple. The simple fact you completely reject Buddhism even without showing an inkling of understanding it shows just how narrow your focus is. You can't make up definitions to words, including religious ones like salvation. Salvation is still dependent on a religious context, something that is not contingent to reality. It's entirely subjective and the fact you keep trying to prove if using nothing but your own narrow dogma only reinforces my point.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, May, 17, 2009 10:20 PM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

reality-jack

"Salvation is still dependent on a religious context, something that is not contingent to reality."-jack

Salvation is dependant upon one thing, and that is Jesus Christ, who IS reality; not religion, not MY interpretation, nor yours.

It is your definition of reality that is questionable. One doesn't have to see Him or measure Him to know He is real. We can't see the wind either, but we know it is present because we can see the work.
I know He is real, because I know of His work, and I have seen it in others also. You say if a person doesn't believe, the promises of God are of none effect, but you couldn't be more wrong. I am quite certain, in the judgment that awaits us all, that every opportunity that you've had will haunt you for all eternity, because you will be judged for rejecting the Truth.

Whether or not you believe it, doesnt make a bit of difference.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 18, 2009 7:39 AM Jack writes:

More Mincing

"Salvation is dependant upon one thing, and that is Jesus Christ, who IS reality."

Still Chiefest, Jesus Christ is a religious figure whose life is depicted mostly in religious texts. You can't say religion isn't a part of it even if Jesus was a real person. He's still a man whose miraculous nature is dependent on faith. There's as much proof of his divinity as there is Buddha's, who was also a real person.

In regards to knowing what is real, you're right there are things we can't see, but we can measure and observe them. Wind is invisible, but it can be measured and the effects can be rationalized. The same goes for gravity, atoms, and germs. They can't be seen either, but they can be objectively measured. Spirits, miracles, and the supernatural cannot be measured and that is why they are not a valid measure of reality. Saying you know its real because you know its at work is mere circular reasoning. It's like saying it has to be real because I know its real, therefore it has to be real. The logic breaks down and doesn't prove anything objectively.

This is not to say it doesn't have personal power. Belief and faith have a great effect on a person and it is very much a part of their identity. I can tell it is very important to you and I would never ask or encourage you to abandon it, as opposed to you constantly urging that I repent on mine. It is all still subjective and whether you believe it or not, that doesn't make it true or untrue. It just makes it a belief.

Take care,
Jack
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, May, 22, 2009 8:53 PM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

measurement-jack

"In regards to knowing what is real, you're right there are things we can't see, but we can measure and observe them. Wind is invisible, but it can be measured and the effects can be rationalized. The same goes for gravity, atoms, and germs. They can't be seen either, but they can be objectively measured. Spirits, miracles, and the supernatural cannot be measured and that is why they are not a valid measure of reality." -jack


I, and many others, have objectively measured your way, many for years and some for nearly entire lifetimes, and have found it wanting. I therefore, by the grace of God, have chosen the better way; hereby I testify of my good fortune.

There is more than one way to measure something.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, May, 22, 2009 11:23 PM Jack writes:

Personal Preference

Chiefest, if you find the way of a non-believer and a rational mind not enough, then that's fine. You may fill the void with whatever beliefs you want. But you can't pass them off as truth on the same level. They are still beliefs of a personal nature. Everybody is entitled to them, but nobody is entitled to state their beliefs are reality over others.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive