The Most Objective Man In The World
And so concludes another discussion, this time with someone who says he is "completely objective now as faer [sic] as is humanly possible". According to him, the way to become objective is to stop hardening your heart against Christ, and instead harden your heart against anything other than Christ. I particularly love how he prefaces a statement by saying "LOGIC:" Isn't that cute?
On the one hand he is proud of his higher education and expects me to take his word for it because of this; and on the other hand he simultaneously considers universities to be in the business of deceiving people. He is really impressed with pseudoscientist Creationists who have not published any papers through peer-reviewed journals. In those rare moments where he stops telling me what my motives are and attempts to put together an argument, this is the main thrust. He eventually concludes our exchange with a frustrated series of insults couched in love and friendship. He specifically denies that I got to him, but obviously I did. Poor guy.
Not trusting e-mail alone to keep my records, I am archiving it here even though it will be of limited interest to you. I am also removing the name of my correspondent.
Hey my friend its good that you have begun to reason and even that you are free from the deadness that I we call 'fundamentalism' but you still need to open your eyes and be unafraid to think. I started out with no training, just factory work etc. I later had the sad experience of enduring Baptist Fundamentalism, but during those years began to think avidly about everything. I learned as much as I could teaching myself to read Greek and Hebrew and got to know all the doctrines.
Later I got out of fundamentalism and all that 'rapture' and 'millenialism' goo and began to rediscover the true Christianity of the bible, the early church writers and Martin Luther, etc. You can see where I am going with that.
Later on I got interested in astronomy and got pretty good at it, but being limited by what I could afford as to telescope, I started reading as much as I could which lead me to think about the expansion of the universe and what the interpretation of this meant in terms of the 'big bang'.
About this time I picked up my trade, moved to Queensland and a year later back to South Australia, and endured some hardships leading to me becoming a sole parent.
At long last I decided to go back and learn Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics so as to do University Engineering.
In turn my degree has taken a turn toward Science, which I love, specifically Chemistry and Physics (although I have studied Biology).
My point is simple. I am 38 and completely objective now as faer as is humanly possible. It is easy for me to see now that evolution is a foolish concoction of the darkness of man's heart. It is a childish attempt to avoid moral accountability. I met a girl at uni recently who shares my view. There are many evolutionists in Germany (Google search: Klause Dose+Mainz Conference) who no longer accept evolution as taught as empirical science (no great mystery there).
As to Cosmology, the universe has to be either static or dynamic. It turns out that it is dynamic. The 'force over distance' inverse square laws of gravity mean that everything is either falling or flying away in the universe. Falling things are generally falling in patterns known commonly as orbits. Eg, planets around stars, moons around planets, stars around galactic centres, etc. Galaxies outside local clusters of galaxies are moving apart. Why???
Because if you create gravity things do not stay put but inevitably fall inward. Hence you must have them dynamic, that is expanding. Atheistic man has as a starting premise: "There is no God" and so looks for a natural explanation for all phenomena. In Quantum mechanics, we have the famous quote' God does not throw dice' - Einstein. But God does not throw dice. Man interprets according to both his own deterministic premises and observations.
So man sees an expanding unverse (my own fascination) and sees that in the absence of a creator it all must go to a singularity where energy is infinitely dense and gravity is infinite. Man tries to measure in Planck lengths as though on the outside of this infinitely small singularity of space-time with the reasoning of classical physics. It can't be done. Any such universe would have to be quantified by relativity of such a degree as has not been described by science as yet- not even string theory.
I do not accept the big bang hypothesis but understand that it is a less than substantiated attempt to explain the physical. One of the chemical Physicists (Dr Quinton) has explained to me that he rejects the bang theory on scientific grounds in that it does not obey conservation of energy laws and that it claims the 'cop out' that the laws of physics break down in such conditions. In other words there is a lot of gloss.
My friend you say 'evolution is nearly as certain as gravitation' but one of my evolutionist lectures admitted to me that my premise that creation and evolution are philosophies or models by which we evaluate the evidence; as being absolutely correct. In other words, she admitted that evolution is philosophy not science by which evolutionists seek to judge their world. Creation is not science either, even though it does not contradict science. It is merely the cause of the physical universe. In the subjective sense, it is the affirmation of the fact that we are because God created us in the beginning.
As to gravity, even Newton's Laws break down and give place to General Relativity. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, though both demonstrated by experiment, are unable to be harmonised; the macro and the micro if you will, by a single unifying theory. And why should man be able to find out everything??? God has set boundaries which frustrate the limits of human thinking. We can never 'peer' to the outer edge of our universe, much less travel to the nearest star nor know with certainty the position of atomic particles in motion.
Notwithstanding we have the statement of Christ Jesus: 'I am the Way the Truth and the Life' John 14. These He can and does affirm only because he is truly God. As God and man he is the way to God for man, and is the Truth because He is God and as God is The Life. That is The Life and Truth by which you and I can live, if we but will........
I would like to hear from you
Regards
[Name Removed]
[Name Removed],
Thanks for writing and telling me your story. Is there something I can do for you?
-Matt
Hi Matt. I was hoping to discuss with you some of your ideas.
The overview I gave you was exceedingly brief in nature. There is far more, but I intended to give you something of an outline so that you could appreciate that in some respects my angle is not so different from yours.
Incidentally, It was with some amusement that I recalled today 'that' world of fundamentalism. Remember 'The Biblical Fundamentalist' paper??? Matt I left that world when I was 23 but did not stop yearning to understand things.
I sense that with you, as your conciousness of your own intelligence developed you began to question all of the premises on which your religion lay. Unfortunately, Fundamentalist Baptist religion is largely a sham after the mainstays are taken away. Whta I mean is that it is an amalgam of certain fundamental ideas central to the Bible, with a host of man made, legalistic inventions and pseudo doctrines.
Incidentally, it was during those years and that experience that I learned to value the entire process of critical thinking. (Underscore - critical thinking).
The study of theology gave me that and I find it particularly useful in the study of science. Ironic how different we are at this point!
Matt I read some more of your material this morning and it induced me to consider the semantics behind your reasoning even more. It was very early morning that I was writing after a long tiresome day. (Had some dramas today to deal with too. Rather strange day!). I get the impression that you trust very much in your own ability- which is okay in my view up to a point. I say this because I feel I identify with your tone in several ways. Rather, I feel as though I have thought more llike this in time past. I learned that many things which seemed so clear cut to me are now nothing at all. But far from being an unsettling experience for me, this has actually been a liberating thing. You see I feel truly free; Not the Fundamentalist blather you have previously heard. No, indeed I act as a man unafraid of what the evidence and information will unfold, because objectvity in my method of dealing with information leads me to know that If I am wrong about something, then I stand to find the answer.
What I am saying is that while I become ever more confident in my faith, I have learned to be unafraid of relevant enquiry both in faith related matters and in the scientific study of physical processes.
You mentioned Carl Sagan. I read a book, by his predecessor, Frank Drake (Is Anyone Out There?). Drake actually trained Sagan in the whole SETI program. While I had not the least inclination to believe in ETI, yet I was facinated to read about the use of radio frequencies to eliminate this line of enquiry and indede for so much more useful study within our own galaxy and beyond. In thirty plus years , not a peep has been heard, nor will ever be......Well that is my certain prognosis, but I waqs interested to understand the thinking of such scientists and enter into the psychology of their reasoning.
Its actually rather simple and indeed quite consistent. They start with the premise that 'Life has evolved on earth, therefore, given that there are about 100 billion galaxies of an average size of 50 to 100 billion stars (around 10^21 stars!); life must have evolved in countless places. You see Matt, the reasoning is a mere extrapolation of the starting philosophy the evolution is a fact. But evolution is not a fact. Professor Werner Gitt (Director of the Federal Institute of Physics in Germany) has written a book on information theory 'In the Beginning There Was Information' (published by CLV), and he demonstrates purely from the laws of science that information never arises by itself, but always has intelligent origin. Furthermore his theorems state that information is not a property of matter. Matter and energy can be used to transmit information, but they do not comprise it nor are they the source of it. It sources from mind (ultimately).
Consider the great text books commonly associted with uni study. You know the 8 by 15 inch by 2.5 inch thick texts we often had to carry! My biology text book I used studying gene expression (Cambell and Reece- Biology) is thoroughly evolution based, but states the the human genome being replicated in each cell in the body, carries the equivalent of over six hundred equivalent sized text books of such information!!!!! THe cell can copy all that in just a few hours, usually flawlessly, but has proofreading mechanisms built into the DNA transciption processes!!!
Our lecturer, professor Catcheside, thouroughly evolutionist told us that the number of combinations (by memory now) of just putting together a typical protein out of the typical 20 amino acid building blocks were so high that if all the matter in the universe ( it happens to be around 10^54 Kg) were to be recreated every millisecond for the last 15 billion years, it would not be enough. I later looked at the number of combinations ossible and realised that if you extend to every microsecond, every nanosecond, every picosecond every femtosecond and many many orders beyond that, you still do not fulfil the number of combinations. Be aware however, there are at least 100 thousand specifically different proteins in the human body (under current estimates) and that says nothing of the infinitely intricate carrier and receptor systems and so on. Bear in mind that recreating 10^54 Kg of matter 1000 times every second for 15 billion years (and the rest of the analogy) is already too stupendous too imagine.
Sir Fred Hoyle, Nobel prize winning astronomer used to be an atheist. He states that he actually finds it easy now to convince his colleagues of the necessity for Divine creation simply by holding his colleagues to the stupendous implications of the maths (which thing they easily comprehend). He says it takes very little time for them to see the implications once they open their minds beyond the programmed impasse that they have been trained to accept.
This is my point too. It is one thing to be brought up in a simple but accurate account of our origins only to leave it later because of the many things that seem not to add up. Be aware though, that sin, as human nature I mean; is always with us. Therefore the tendency to be a rebel is in me and you and all men equally. We have the disposition to turn our faces from God quite without encouragement.
God does not jump out at us and need to prove a point in such a man like way. The knowledge of God is inherent in creation and in our very being. We are supposed to acknowledge the obvious as a matter of fact, but it is sin that rises up to challenge this. Helen Keller, when she first learned to comunicate with the outside world was told of Christ. It is reported that she remarked to the effect, 'Oh is that His Name, I always wondered what it was!'
Very simply, she had always known that God was there, without outside input. And so do you. What are you striving against??
When I began to read you material it reminded me of the German intellectuals circa 1890's. It was a lot like reading Nietzche. You see America is slowly catching up with and emulating the sad decline of 'Christian' Germany. The thinking of German philosophy at the rise of the third Reich makes for interesting reading. My family is Gedrman on my mothers side. They are on good cordial terms with me, but I find that they live in a barren, empty wilderness. They have lost their way.
The Germans developed the ability to think crittically to through the reformation but became vain and arrogant in their success. In time they trusted in their own clarity of mind and became foolish arrogant and agressive. In Deuteronomy, God warns the peolpe that in process of time they would trust in what they had achieved and forget that without God they had no power to do anything. It is the same with man now.
I do hope you will see that I speak to you as to a friend. I am not better than you, but would like to see you find the Saviour too.
Regards
[Name Removed]
[Name Removed],
I'm glad to hear that you value objectivity and critical thinking. Congratulations.
I'm also glad that you consider Baptist fundamentalism to be a sham. You and I agree on this.
I have heard the arguments you present against evolution all throughout my life. When I was a Creationist, I used to teach people the same things. I have changed my mind since then, based on the evidence that was presented to me. http://www.talkorigins.org/ was very helpful to me. I brought the same challenges to the theory of evolution which you do, and more, and thought that evolutionists could not answer them. But each one of my challenges was met on talkorigins.org. I discovered that the global scientific community is not carrying out any conspiracy to conceal the truth about evolution and Creation. It took a very long time of study from a variety of sources, but over the period of a few years I gradually realized I had been misled about Creation. Evolutionary science has incredibly elegant explanations for the existence of all the inticacies of DNA biology without need of a designer.
Should I tell you about those evidences? I could debate you on the topic of evolution vs. Creation, but there are two reasons why this would not be an effective use of our time together.
First, even if I became convinced that life did not come about through evolution, that does not mean the designer was a god or a goddess. There are many people who do not believe in evolution but do not believe in gods either, so they simply say there is no answer available to them. Even if it were a deity, it might be some other deity from the one you worship, and you would not think that I was much better off than you thought I was before. If your goal is to make me interested in your Savior, this would not be a direct route.
Second, if I convinced you that evolution had taken place, this does not change very much in you, because you could say that blind evolution was set in motion by the Christian God. There are many believers in Theistic Evolution.
So. Even if we resolve that issue, it would not necessarily lead to a change in either of us in an area of what is really at stake here. Therefore I recommend that you get your information about evolution from someone other than me, since I lead a busy life.
However, there are things in your e-mail I would like to discuss. For instance. You say that I secretly believe that there is a deity, and that I am lying when I say there is not one. I assure you I am quite sincere. I am really convinced that there is no god. Even a person who is mistaken can come by a mistake honestly, as I believe you have probably come by your mistakes honestly. If you are going to call me a liar, I don't know why you should offer me proof of something if you think I already know it to be true. In that case, the discussion would be over, wouldn't it? Didn't Jesus say to kick the sand off your feet and depart such a city? Also, did he not say to not throw pearls before swine, lest they turn again and rend you? In jest, I will say that I will try as hard as I can not to rend you, but don't say Jesus didn't warn you. ;)
I hope you will continue to read more of my site.
-Matt
My friend I assure you that I have a thick skin. I worked for many years among hardened and violent people and I feel I know a little about persons who can rend as wild boars do. Yes I know that in a certain sense it is true occasionally of intellectuals.
You raise some clever and witty comments, to be sure. May I remind you that the Holy Apostle declares that 'men hold the truth in unrighteousness.' LOGIC: If this were true I would know it before I read it. Actually I did. The passage simply gave me a sophisticated way of understanding a subjective knowledge. I know experientially what it is to remain in a hardened state whilst knowing there is a God. (While conscience is an integral part of this, the knowledge is there by reason of the image of God within and the witness of creation without).
I see that I have merited a detailed response. I feel flattered. I do not intend to annoy you deliberately. I sense too, that you are the sort of man that would take no pleasure either in 'rending' anyone nor being perceived as such a person. In this we are also similar, if I am correct.
You mention the standard 'rap' that the creation arguments use, which you blindly followed once to. This is not my angle. I deal only with fact within the certain knowledge of the creator (my premise).
Matt I am writing as a scientist. That is the training that I undertake at university at any rate. I got the impression that your training was in 'The Arts', which is fine, but I assure you that science has by no means proven evolution. In science we simply propose hypotheses to explain observation and then devise repeatable methods to test the hypotheses. Evolution does not occur. What does occur is mutation of existing DNA molecules through various mutagens like high energy radiation (UV and higher). Not a single mutation has ever provided new information, merely degenerative modification of existing information. What also occurs is natural selection, viz, environment and chance on development of genotype and phenotypic expression. This is not evolution any more than a child playing with Lego blocks is inventing a new kind of building block.
Matt, I know already of two molecular biologists (one of them Dimitri Koutznekov) who reject evolution and my lecturer, herself a micro biologist admitted that evolution is a philosophical interpretation and approach to the diverse biological world. Conversely, I found Phd students who refused to entertain of admit their fallacy, yet could not defend evolution on any higher level than a philosophical assertion of the origin of species.
My point is simple. I met many proffessing Christians who develop the same sort of impasses when challenged on the false doctrines they hold. Heresy ('Opinion Holding') is a work of the flesh, and it is this flesh in 'Christians' and infidel alike that opposes God's truth. Notwithstanding, I have met people who are unafraid, who are not insecure about letting their ideas be challenged. After, If I am wrong in anything I will gladly see where and why. That doesn't bother me, and I have practised what I advocate.
Actually, the real farce is the deliberate programmed brainwashimg of the kids I see at uni (for I am twice their age literally). Evolutionary assumption is stated as fact, but never demonstrated or proven. Surely you in your intellectual integrity would take exception to that? Doi not misunderstand me here. Radiometric dating methods and other such mathematical constructs and their interpretations are a whole different thing. Frankly I prefer them, because here we start with real science and with mathematics that is demonstrable. osmology is a favourite for me for precisely the same reasons.
I guess, I wish to say Matt, that you ought not to take what the general science world spits out at you without a thorough examination of their claims. I have been examining their claims for quite some time. Most of it is based purely on assumption built upon assumption. Science and subjective interpretaion is simply read into the observation.
Hey, I recognise that I a mile off; I used to see fundamentalists doing the same thing in their theologies. My point is that this is the childish tendency of 'Christian' and heathen alike and it is neither Christian nor Objective nor Scientific in nature. The pathway towards objectivity began for me probably thirty years ago because of the emphasis I got from my dad on that, but it went into earnest for me in my early twenties. Its a curious thing. When you begin uni they teach you how to think critically. I attended a seminar at the beginning of uni and was blown away because I realised that I had been doing so for years, very much so.
Naturally I don't imagine that I know it all. Very much the opposite. The more I see, however, the more I notice how little fact and fiction are separated in uni and it is a full blown problem in the 'Arts" sections of unis in particular.The science section of uni, thank God, is more or less free to study empirical facts.
Matt, I understand that you are a busy man. I too am so busy beyond belief. I am currently preparing for a physics exam and have to complete a Med Chem assignment by Friday. On top of which I have my kids needs to attend to, and they are considerable. I ever so do not wish to seem condescending to you. I am sure we both know that such a purile attitude serves no use to any one. I fear for you, however, because you are in danger of serving the fleshly nature of your mind rather than acknowledging the truth that you hold within you (which you say you deny). I see you as a man that is disposed his way and wants to believe that such an attitude can be excused by the very God which you therefore need to deny. Can you not see that YOU are in the trap of circular reasoning??? Humour me, imagine yourself standing on the outside and reading your own rhetoric. Can you see that?? Your current security depends upon a denial of God because even without that 'logical' progression, it starts with a denial of God.
Perhaps you could even out argue me and debate well. That is not (necessarily) the same as being correct. I do not say that would happen, but there is no point in labouring these things as you rightly point out. Matt I noted your lack of definitive, subjective experience with God in your website. That is sad. All true Christians know the voice of the Saviour through the Spirit of Christ in the Word. Notwithstanding this, faith does not seek for this but leaves reason in its proper place and turns to the objective Word because it is from God.St Augustine said 'Seek not to know in order to believe, but believe in order to know'. Martin Luther based his whole philosophy on this advice. With God things are different. I am really no different to you. I have the same nature lurking within, but to serve it does not excuse it, nor bring a true peace. There is Spiritual peace for those who learn to know of a crucified Saviour, but for those who harden their hearts against their maker and redeemer, there is nothing but wrath and (righteous) judgement. So why perish seeing you were redeemed already at a great cost and that God bids you come? Beware. If you have the attitude of the swine now it were better that you keep your thoughts to yourself. If not then know that I have said what I feel I ought to say my friend. Forgive my limitation of expression but think about my words.
[Name Removed]
Incidentally I have had a look at the site you mentioned. I have seen all this and more before. I cannot go into a lengthy dissertation on this even if I wanted too. Time energy and to a certain degree, the expertise these arguments deserve do not allow. Suffice it to say thjere is dishonesty in the way this article handles the definitions concerning evolution. The gradual change in the expression of phenotype over time and varition of environment in a population, is a characteristic inherent in the genome of living things. (I know of no exceptions). This is natural selection not evolution, the arisal of complex forms out of more primitive forms and in turn out of nothing more than dead matter. Life always utilises prexisting complex, sophisticated information. If I cause a mutation to that information I create a risk to the continuation of that species and damage the information codons coding for specific proteins. I do no evolve anything.
The information and arguments in that article are already of a dated nature. I suspect that you do not really know very much about gene expression. (I suppose I have an advantage in that I studied it at uni last year). Suffice to say, that the arguments are built around a false starting premise with the intention of defending it with the 'appearance' of scientific argument. Incidentally, Italian scientists have shown by repeatable experimentation the fossil layering does not occur as previously thought and that fossils at the bottom are often younger than those at the top, yet early twentieth century science relies heavily on pressupositions of this kind for dating methods.
There is really no argument though. If you statrt with the intention of being atheist, you will find that God will allow you to accept a strong delusion. I challenge you to really study gene expression seeing you are so far confident that it is an escape from accountability to God. Just open your eyes and go in knowing that these guys have something to defend (that's right an agenda of their own).
On the other hand if you start with acknowledgement of the creator you will invariably read the wondrous creation as a book and rejoice with thousands of those who know God and marvel at His works. The choice is really yours.
[Name Removed]
[Name Removed],
Your angle has matched the standard 'rap' that Creation Scientists use, in every respect. I do not assign any scientific credibility to you at all. Please do not waste your time telling me the entire global scientific community is conspiring to brainwash people. That's paranoid.
Once again I will repeat myself. If you were to persuade me that evolution did not take place, this would not mean that there is a god. Evolution is an interesting topic, but your purpose is to reconcile me with Jesus Christ, and that does not accomplish it. If evolution did not take place, an evolutionist can still be reconciled to Jesus Christ and go on believing that Jesus started off the process of evolution. Many people do this.
I'm sorry that I repeated all that so monotonously, but you did not address it last time. I will just have to keep bringing it up every day until you do.
Where is my circular reasoning? You seem to be attempting to describe it but you aren't expressing yourself clearly.
You said that Augustine said "Seek not to know in order to believe, but believe in order to know." This is so far from knowing, it is the opposite of knowing.
If someone believes in Allah, does that mean they know that Allah is the one true God? Or what about any of the other religions in the world? If Augustine's quote is correct, it would justify all of them. You can't say that it's all right for believers in Christ to know by first believing, but it isn't OK for believers in other religions (or no religion at all) to know by first believing. You would then be practicing a double standard.
Perhaps it was this advice from Augusting that caused Martin Luther to say "Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spritual things, but, more frequently than not, struggles against the Divine Word. Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and know nothing but the word of God. Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason." Certainly Luther was no
critical thinker.
-Matt
Yes Matt I am familiar with Luther quotes like that and several more. I recdeive a magazine that has a quote on the front page of each edition. Ha! You are certainly a stranger to Luther. The man had no problem with the right use of reason. Indeed he was a law student originally and became a fine Hebrew and Greek scholar. When it came to etymology and hermeneutics, he is not outdone by any. All these things require critical thinking whether you believe in God or not. He simply saw by means of a faith which only God can work, the uselessness of reason in Divine things. (Incidentally, my training is as a scientist, my trade was taken in engineering, but my original expertise is in theology-I find no disharmony. It is simply a matter of using one's intelligence appropriately to each field). If you had read much of Luther, you would see what a lucid genius his intellect possessed.
I think though that we are too straying into too many subset discussions, to which time does not permit an exhaustive analysis.
As to standard rap creation science. I speak my own analogies mostly, but note that you admit freely that it is scientists that are arguing creation here and you are clearly no scientist friend. I do not seek to insult. I realise that you have skills in areas that I do not.
Please do not use blanket reasoning. I did not claim at any time a CONSPIRACY. This is your own 'mantra'. Perhaps if you repeat it often enough, you will convince yourself that it is the position of the creationist on those who are evolutionist (well maybe some think like this after all). Matt do you ever purchase stocks and shares? If you have ever experienced the fun of the marketplace you will see that it is an 'entity', something like a mob. There are reasons why evolution is programmed into unwitting students without any true critical analysis. One such reason is that at high levels (sometimes transcending governments of the day) the philosophies of Plato's Republic are being advocated by a few powerful individuals, but please lets not sidetrack there!
No, predominantly the problem is one of the blindness that is in the heart of man. Professing themselves to be wise, men become fools and serve the creation more than Creator. This is why I told you about heresy. In the original secular use it meant 'opinion holding: "I follow Plato, I follow Socrates, I follow Thales, etc, etc." But heresy is the blind sevice of the mind of our own flesh. Paul calls it the service of 'the belly', but in
Greek it is a figure of speech meaning our own twisted iner biases. I have seen a proffessor openly speak of the utterly impossible biological combinations only to deny creation! Man willingly serves darkness and error thinking himself wise all the time and even his science goes out the window. You should know that evolution was around with the ancient Greeks for precisely the same reason that it is today: It is not science but a philosophy by which man, in the denial of a maker, seeks to explain his existence. Man no matter how educated has to contend with his own biased fleshly reasoning in all that he does and so to the Christian.
I saw that your reasoning is necessarily circular, because you do not desire to acknowledge God on the basis of (a flawed) reasoning, but that reasoning must have as its conclusion that there is no God before it starts, in order to justify itself as a truly 'intelligent' and 'justified' line of enquiry. If the slight doubt creeps in, you whole house falls down on the foundation of sand upon which it was built. I don't have to prove anything to you. You have only to be honest with the light you have. Incidentally, that is why you will not listen to the highly trained SCIENTISTS who do advocate CREATION. These are often people who have finally applied critical reasoning to the sham of evolution and begun to rethink as a scientist.
I can tell you as an eye witness, that evolutionary dogma is paradigmically taught as though it were fact, without real proof (I was there). I see students just go from lectures learning by 'rote' what they are supposed to accept. You want to know what happens when you talk to them about it, as I have done? They often gladly admit that evolution is a sham. You see they are passively exposed to this stuff for years until conditioned to accept it
blindly. Their leaders are often the blind leaders of the blind according to the saying.
In ending I would say to you; No Matt, theistic evolutionism neither evolution nor creationism. If you knew either scheme that well, you should have known this, don't you think? Genesis 1:1 asserts two things: God and the Cosmos. Everything there is. We scientists know that space-time is an entity that cannot be separated. Before there was space there was no time (at least as we know it - and that is again as the scientists describe it). As a theologian I already knew that all things, even time had their origin with Christ (Heb 1:2, Psa 33:6,9, Psa 102, 25-27).
You have not raised one single valid scientific argument nor am I afraid of your empty sophistries. I do not think that you have seen the end of your own reasoning yet, but I have experience of many diverse orders of unbelieving argument. Yes yes, I see your attempt to cleverly stitch a 'watertight' argument, but to those on the outside you only raise more questions (there is no prison that cannot be escaped). Perhaps you have unwittingly stiched yourself in? Go ahead, why don't you take up a semester or two of biological science? You might be surprised after all and see that all is not what it seems. Science is great ( I for one love it) but I did not need to proof on that basis (even though I have it now also) for creation. God and creation are self evident and even a child can grasp that. I think your version of reason is nothing more than pride and a empty trust in your own 'alledged' ability to reason. Have you ever wondered about the real reason why you set up your website? I see just another small man shaking his fist at a God he says he doesn't believe in. That's a lot of effort for nothing, don't you think?
Matt, your not as clever as you perhaps would like to think, and I am probably similar.. We are all descendents of the human family. I have said enough as far as I am concerned. You know enough to be honest or dishonest with yourself. With me you make no inpression at all, but I have enjoyed our discourse. I do care about what happens to you. I only hope you will be delivered form your darkness my friend.
[Name Removed]
Comments
tammylc on Nov. 9, 2005 8:24 PM
Fascinating.
murphyw on Nov. 9, 2005 8:55 PM
Wow. Those inter-nets do dredge up some interesting view points.
Thanks for sharing. I'm not sure I could hold myself to a cogent place in such a torrent of discussion. Was fun watching you do so.
--Bill
matt-arnold on Nov. 9, 2005 9:11 PM
Glad you enjoyed it.
Dredge up? I guess that depends on your point of view. Whether he's an exception or a rule depends on where you are looking at it from; you seem blissfully unfamiliar with this type of guy, whereas until a few years ago I saw this as pretty much the standard average person on the street who I had to deal with. Enter a church and pick someone at random from a pew (not from on stage) and odds are it will be this guy. With as much practice as my life has thrown at me, one learns how not to get drowned in the torrent.
sarahmichigan on Nov. 9, 2005 8:56 PM
You're gonna make me fall in love with you, Matt. Brill.
matt-arnold on Nov. 9, 2005 9:22 PM
Thank you so much!
wormquartet on Nov. 9, 2005 9:23 PM
There's never any point to this kind of argument. It's always the same thing...theology gets offered as incontrovertible proof by the creationist, and they lack the capacity to see why the non-creationist doesn't accept this.
What do you get out of responding to these e-mails, Matt? Just the brain exercise? It's got to be frustrating. I can't believe I even read the whole damned thing (well, most of it...I'll admit I often resorted to skimming a few paragraphs into his posts in order to get to your response and take a desperately gasping breath of logic. :) )
-=ShoEboX=-
matt-arnold on Nov. 9, 2005 10:00 PM
You're right, neither of the participants was going to be converted. I knew that going in, and now that he has expressed a desire to conclude, I won't pursue it any further. I have several reasons for responding to him.
I feel like I have, in a way, stood up on the rooftop of the internet to defend certain things, and in so doing, practically invited challenge. When challenged to provide the things of value that I claim to possess, it would seem strange to me if I withheld it. I constantly tell people that reasoning with each other is preferable to the only alternative means of approaching a conflict: coercion, deception and emotionalistic distraction. That means I have set forth certain rules, and must obey my rules as I wish others would do.
But there is some benefit from exposure to those who are different from us. David Brin wrote a novel titled "Earth" in which internet filters are able to keep every person completely insulated from views or personalities not compatable with their own. I am constantly astonished by the people in the circles I now travel in who have no idea how ubiquitous this man is. He, in his turn, gets very little exposure to you. If nothing else, each interaction slightly nudges our idea of what the "average person" is like. In other words, how normal are our good and sane friends who refer to themselves as religious? Is my correspondent the exception that proves the rule, or are they? I participate to remind myself how shocking my statements are to most people. That way I don't fall into the trap he has fallen into, where his beliefs are so normal to him that they seem self-evident.
Third, you never really know how his expression of faith is going to be molded, in a tiny way, as a response to what he heard from me. It will be molded in another tiny step by something he hears elsewhere. The entire establishment of enlightened liberal religion is probably due to this.
Anonymous on Apr. 14, 2007 1:49 PM — Microbiologist
Professor Maciej Giertych: Geneticist and microbiologist was once an evolutionist until his teenage daughter came home one day saying that microbiology had proved evolution. As a microbiologist, he knew that this was just not true but had always assumed that some other branch of biology could prove evolution. He soon realised that it was all wrong and now teaches from a creationist stance.
Leave a Comment