tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60301109730618757922024-03-16T21:32:23.149-04:00A Sure WordThe testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
Psalm 19:7RKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comBlogger774125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-78179023057834761172021-04-10T21:10:00.000-04:002021-04-10T21:10:33.240-04:00I've moved!<p><span style="font-family: georgia;">To
all my faithful readers (at least those few who might be left), as
well as to any new people who have started visiting hoping to find
new comment, you may have noticed it's been a while since I've
blogged. By “a while,” I mean nearly 2 years. Yikes!!</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">There's
an old saying that could apply here: the more you miss blogging, the
less you miss blogging. I don't know for sure what made me get away,
but once I was away for a while, it just never seemed like there was
time to get back to it. Shame on me. There were times in the past
when I would miss a few months and I'd always felt like I was too
busy with other things and so I blamed those other things. However,
when there's been a 2 year absence, there has to be other things
going on.</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Life
is stressful – but so is everyone's life so I shouldn't use that as
an excuse. Maybe I was burned out, if that's really a thing. I
guess that's part of it but something else was just nagging at me.
It's just hard to put my finger on it. Perhaps I wasn't happy with
the content I was posting - like my writing just wasn't up to par.
Maybe I wanted to grow my blog into other mediums but I wasn't sure
how. Maybe I got away from the things that made me want to start
blogging in the first place and that I was spending more time writing
than learning. Whatever the cause, the result is the same and it's
too bad. I've always felt like blogging is my ministry, so the time
I spent away from blogging could be said to be time spent in
rebellion.</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Having
said that, I did like some of the material I'd posted here. I also
spent some of my absence studying, learning, and growing. I've
decided to take some of my ideas and launch a new blog with a
different URL. It will also be called, A Sure Word but the new URL
is <a href="https://2peter119.blogspot.com/">2Peter119.blogspot.com</a>.
I'm leaving this blog up, but I won't be posting new material here.
If you've liked visiting my blog here, please visit me there.</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Thank
you, thank you, thank you! God bless!!</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">RKBentley</span><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: large; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibTqv7D1SYpnFZmbIe38kIUgj44LcCgukdIDOHEpvDCCxtAMTvw5sRzaKlaM14gBw-XPvuTkaMp9I67par8dTqzXuIxDweSeAlEugZyQoaoH92MzkNCF1_Zjrp83W4t7DDAJohQ-_wmBY/s1143/RKBentley+author.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1143" data-original-width="950" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibTqv7D1SYpnFZmbIe38kIUgj44LcCgukdIDOHEpvDCCxtAMTvw5sRzaKlaM14gBw-XPvuTkaMp9I67par8dTqzXuIxDweSeAlEugZyQoaoH92MzkNCF1_Zjrp83W4t7DDAJohQ-_wmBY/w532-h640/RKBentley+author.jpg" width="532" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">RKBentley, author</td></tr></tbody></table><br /></p>RKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-18324281488136468422019-07-30T07:21:00.000-04:002019-07-30T07:21:20.117-04:00Answering TalkOrigins “Frequently asked but never answered questions”: Part 2<br />
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I'm
writing a series responding to an article from TalkOrigins.org
titled, <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fabnaq.html">FABNAQ
(Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions)</a>. I'm hoping to
answer 2-3 questions with each post but the first 2 questions had
multiple sub-questions so I answered only question #1 in my first
post and now I'm answering only question #2 in my second. And even
though I'm only answering a single question, this is a longer post
than usual. Thanks in advance for your patience. Let's get on to
the next question:</span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<a href="https://unsplash.com/@samuelzeller" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="501" data-original-width="334" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-52UuVgqvzvcKyg53TLgADUqLl5J8GtBfFybrMXrFr_ML0LD1npzzEKrsRFl-vjVup4Q1ASTJSLF6A3AJas4k-IsF4Wg9VV7qy2adayNGThgYLyvSqxyJK1EV1rH04-BuX8_rdbzLdf8/s400/Observing.jpg" width="266" /></a><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #ff3333;"><i><b>2.
Is there any observation which supports any feature of your theory?
(An adequate answer to this question will </b></i></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><i><b>not</b></i></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><i><b>
be something which is a problem for evolution, but is rather evidence
</b></i></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><i><b>for </b></i></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><i><b>your
theory. Remember that it is logically possible for both evolution and
your theory to be false. Something which appears to support Lamarkian
evolution rather than Darwinian, or punctuated equilibrium rather
than gradualism is not enough. Also, the observation must be
something which can be checked by an independent observer.)</b></i></span>
</span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I've
talked many times before about the nature of theories and evidence.
In short, theories are our attempts to explain the evidence. A
fossil, for example, doesn't tell us how it came to be. Instead, we
use our theories to explain how the fossil came to be. I believe
most fossils were created suddenly in the Flood described in Genesis.
Someone else may believe the fossil formed in a local event (like a
flooded stream), which buried the creature. Both theories could
explain how the fossil formed yet the fossil doesn't tell us which is
true. The fossil is simply data and isn't really <i>for</i> either
theory.</span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">This
idea that evidence is <i>for</i> any theory seems rather circular to
me. If I invent a theory to explain some thing, how could I then say
the thing is evidence for my theory? If I found a black rock with
purple stripes painted on it, I could theorize that aliens painted
the stripes on the rock. What evidence do I have for this theory,
you might ask? Well, there's the rock and there are the stripes so
that proves it! You can see how that doesn't work.</span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
question should be, which theory <i>better</i> explains the evidence?
It seems obvious that the better theory is the one that best
explains the evidence. And if that is true, then problems for
evolution do tend to be evidence <i>for</i> creation. I wrote a
series a couple of years ago, where I suggested 10 observations that
were better explained by creation than evolution/naturalism. I'll
link to the series below but here are a few points from that series:</span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<ul>
<li><div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Secular
origin stories claim matter/energy just poofed into existence. They
believe there must have been a natural cause for nature but that's
like saying nature created nature. It's absurd. It's far more
reasonable to believe that something outside of nature caused nature
– something “super”-natural. </span></span>
</div>
</li>
<li><div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Secular
scientists still cling to a type of spontaneous generation which
they now call “abiogenesis.” It's similar to the long discarded
belief that maggots would spring out of rotting meat. Every example
of spontaneous generation that was once believed to have occurred
has been debunked through experimentation and observation (AKA,
“science”). Now, evolutionists similarly believe the first
life-form sprang out of a fortunate arrangement of amino acids.
They haven't seen it happen. They can't make it happen. They just
blindly believe it did happen. It's far more reasonable to believe
God created life.</span></span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Mimicry
is an observed phenomenon where one creature looks and/or behaves
like another creature. A fly might look like a bee; a lizard might
look like a leaf; a moth might look like an owl. There is an
obvious survival advantage to this – prey can more easily hide
from predators or maybe it appears too dangerous to approach. But
how did such remarkable similarities evolve? Evolutionists have
their stories: each generation of fly was tested by natural
selection, and the fly most similar to the bee survived until, over
time, the fly looked a lot like the bee. The problem with this
story is that evolution is not supposed to be a directed process.
Natural selection didn't know the fly should look more like a bee.
Furthermore, the bee is also supposed to be evolving so it wouldn't
matter if the fly looked like the bee if the bee was going to look
like something else in a million years. To believe such a
remarkable similarity could evolve naturally is improbable. To
believe it has happened thousands of times is laughable. It is far
more reasonable to believe the similarities are the product of
design. </span></span>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">As
I've said, evolutionists have their own explanations for these
things. The question is, which is the better explanation. In many
cases, creation is the better theory to explain what we observe.</span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Related
articles:</i></span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2016/01/10-evidences-for-biblical-creation.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>10
Evidences for Biblical Creation</i></span></a></span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2014/06/a-monopoly-on-evidence.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>A
Monopoly on the Evidence</i></span></a></span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2016/09/ten-lies-evolutionists-tell-part-3.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Ten
Lies Evolutionists Tell: Part 3</i></span></a></span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #ff3333;"><i><b>2a.
Is there any observation which was predicted by your theory?</b></i></span>
</span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">If
two theories predict the same thing, then that thing really wouldn't
be evidence for either theory. For example, because the Bible says
there was a flood that covered even the tallest mountains, I could
predict we might find fossils of aquatic animals on the top of even
the tallest mountains. Sure enough, we do find shells on the top of
the Himalayas. Now, people who believe in evolution have their own
theories on why there are fossils on the tops of mountains. It's as
I've already said, both theories have to explain the evidence.
However, in this case, the Bible was indisputably written before
anyone Mt Everest so finding evidence the tops of mountains were once
underwater was predicted <i>before</i> the evidence was found. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I
can already see the evolutionists rolling their eyes as they read
this. I would consider this a very successful prediction – made
millennia before being confirmed – but I doubt critics will see it
the same way. In spite of what you've always heard, many skeptics
don't go wherever the evidence leads them. Instead, they only see
what they want to see and they refuse to see this as a successful
prediction. Oh well.</span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">What
we need are predictions that are based on creationist assumptions and
are not the same as predictions made by secular theories. Here's one
for you to consider:</span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
1984, PhD scientist, Dr. Russell Humphreys, published his predictions
of the strengths of the magnetic fields of both Uranus and Neptune.
His prediction was specifically borne out of his belief in creation.
In his own words (<a href="https://www.icr.org/article/beyond-neptune-voyager-ii-supports-creation/">source</a>):</span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #3333ff;">“</span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #3333ff;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">I
made the predictions on the basis of my hypotheses that (A) the raw
material of creation was water (based on II Peter 3:5, "the
earth was formed out of water and by water"), and (B) at the
instant God created the water molecules, the spins of the hydrogen
nuclei were all pointing in a particular direction. The tiny
magnetic fields of so many nuclei would all add up to a large
magnetic field. By the ordinary laws of physics, the spins of the
nuclei would lose their alignment within seconds, but the large
magnetic field would preserve itself by causing an electric current
to circulate in the interior of each planet. By the same laws, the
currents and fields would preserve themselves with only minor losses,
as God rapidly transformed the water into other materials. After
that, the currents and fields would decay due to electrical
resistance over thousands of years. Not all creationists agree with
my hypothesis that the original material was water, but all agree
that once a magnetic field existed, it would decay over time.</span></i></span><span style="color: #3333ff;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">”</span></i></span><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">What's
more, his predictions were <i><b>very different</b></i> than the
secular, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory">dynamo
theory</a> predictions. Not just a little different but different on
an order of magnitude. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
1986, when Voyager II passed Uranus, we learned that Humphreys'
prediction was correct and the dynamo theory prediction was wrong.
In 1989, Voyager II passed Neptune and, again, Humphreys was proven
right and all other predictions were wrong. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Humphreys
made his predictions in 1984. They were verified in 1986 & 1989.
TalkOrigins wrote their article asking for successful predictions in
1992. They either had not heard of these successful predictions,
heard of them and didn't consider them to be successful predictions,
or heard of them and ignored them hoping that no one else ever hears
about them. I'll let my readers decide which is most likely the
case.</span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Related
articles:</i></span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2015/05/failed-predictions-of-evolutionary.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Failed
Predictions of Evolutionary Theories</i></span></a></span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2019/03/so-tell-me-again-how-evolution-could-be.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>So
tell me again how evolution could be falsified?</i></span></a></span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2016/03/wouldnt-there-have-been-grand-canyon-on.html">Wouldn't
there have been a Grand Canyon on every continent?</a></i></span></span></span></div>
RKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-39633894628835901872019-07-16T07:20:00.003-04:002019-07-16T07:26:00.112-04:00Answering TalkOrigins “Frequently asked but never answered questions”: Part 1<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://unsplash.com/@evan__bray" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="750" height="425" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifreCwiAoVYyVmotqQbpXxVz7sETUCBsmAtikeTZcQXZcF1anhCW_wycBoZA79nS7_PN7h5a7OQ_2AyAaB6RwsfjKHz_VunnEt4uaLHMbKT2js36_P7Zrc8mt8xIqREIjVd7u2ZBJpFrY/s640/Questions.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/">TalkOrigins</a>
(TO) is an online resource whose subtitle describes itself as
</span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>“exploring
the creation/evolution controversy.”</i></span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
That may sound neutral to a casual clicker but the site is squarely
pro-evolution. It's a sort of apologetics site for evolutionists. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Anyway,
in their archive is an article titled, <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fabnaq.html">FABNAQ
(Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions)</a>. I've said
before how titles like this annoy me. It's not quite as bad as
saying, </span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>“Questions
no creationist can answer,”</i></span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
but it's certainly disingenuous because I guarantee you there are at
least a dozen rebuttals to this very article posted elsewhere online.
Many of these questions were asked an answered hundreds of times
even before TO wrote its article. In other words, all of these
questions have been asked and answered so there's nothing sensational
about them. Headlines like this are a cheap gimmick used to make the
article seem to have more weight than it truly does. Now, even
though these questions have been answered over and over, they are
still being asked. And since I need something to blog about, I
thought I'd write a series giving my own responses. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Before
getting into the list, let me preface my response with a few points.
Truth is not affected by my understanding of it. If something is
true, then it's true whether or not I believe it. It's true whether
or not I understand it. And my ability or inability to answer a
question on a subject has no bearing on whether or not the subject is
true. Some subjects are complicated and no one is an expert in
everything so if an unbeliever asks a believer a question he can't
answer, it's not necessarily evidence of anything. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Having
said that, I wonder what is the point of TO asking these questions?
They don't really say. I guess they intend them to have a “gotcha”
effect on creationists but, as I've said, we shouldn't feel defeated
if we can't answer every one of them. However, what happens if I do
answer them? I mean, I intend to answer all of them in my series
and, if I do, does it mean creation is true? Will the people at TO
become creationists? Obviously, that wouldn't be the case. TO isn't
sincerely looking for answers to these questions. Rather, they're
trying to embarrass creationists. They want us to be uncomfortable
and perhaps begin to doubt some of the things we believe. Like I
said, it's a gimmick. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">There
are 12 questions in the article. Further, several of the questions
have sub-questions. It's kind of odd because, in some cases, the
sub-questions seem unrelated to the main question; why didn't they
just make those a separate question? Regardless, I'd like to cover
2-3 questions per post so as to not make this too long of a series.
The first question has five sub-questions, making six questions in
all. Considering I've already devoted a few paragraphs to my opening
remarks, I'll only Question #1 and its sub-questions in this post.
It's still going to be a bit long so I apologize in advance. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Without
further ado, let's get started. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b><span style="color: #ff3333;"><i>1.
Is there any reason to believe in your theory rather than some other
version of creationism?</i></span></b></span></span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">As
I read this question, I took special note that TO is asking why one
version of creationism (presumably, young earth creationism) should
be believed over any other version. Since we're only comparing
versions of creationism, I understand that to mean why should a
</span><i style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Christian</i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"> believe my interpretation over some other
interpretation (like the Gap theory or Day Age theory).</span></blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">Biblically
speaking, I believe the young-earth position is the most obvious
meaning of the text. The “days” consisting of “evening and
morning” in Genesis 1, the “six days” of creation mentioned in
Exodus 20:11, the numerous and detailed genealogies throughout the
Old and New Testaments, all attest to a sudden, recent creation. II
Peter 1:20 says, </span><span style="color: #3333ff; font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><i>“</i></span><span style="color: #3333ff; font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><i>Knowing
this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private
interpretation.”</i></span><span style="color: #001320; font-family: "georgia" , serif;">
In other words, there is no “hidden meaning” to the Bible. The
plain meaning is usually the intended meaning. So when Exodus says,
</span><span style="color: #001320; font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><i>“in
six days the LORD created the heavens and the earth,”</i></span><span style="color: #001320; font-family: "georgia" , serif;">
there should be no twisting of the words to explain why “six days”
really means “billions of years.”</span></blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in;">
<i style="color: #6666ff; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: small;">Further
reading:</i></blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in;">
<a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2011/07/does-and-god-said-mean-god-didnt-do.html" style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Does
“And God Said” Mean God Didn't Do?</i></span></span></a></blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2009/10/how-long-were-days-in-genesis.html"><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">How
Long Were the Days in Genesis?</span></i></span></span></a></span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2016/05/five-reasons-why-i-reject-theistic.html">Five
Reasons Why I Reject Theistic Evolution: Part 1</a></span></i></span></span></span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in;">
<span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>1a.
If you believe that some animals -- for example, dinosaurs -- were
not saved on the Ark, explain why you believe the Bible is incorrect.</b></i></span></span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">This
is an example of what I was saying – some of the sub-questions seem
unrelated to the main question. <i>//RKBentley scratches his head//</i>
I personally don't believe there were any terrestrial kinds omitted
from representation on the Ark so maybe I don't have to answer this
question. But how boring would that be?</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: georgia, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: georgia, serif;">I've
read second hand quotes of Christians supposedly saying that
dinosaurs are extinct because they were too big to fit on the Ark.
However, it's only from critics that I hear quotes like these. I
can't find any sources of creationists making such a claim. Maybe
some exist (it's a big world wide web and I haven't gotten to it all
yet) but they must be such a tiny minority that I would call them,
“fringe.” I suspect, instead, that this is a straw man –
fictitious comments invented by skeptics and attributed to
creationists in order to make them sound foolish.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: georgia, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: georgia, serif;">There
were dinosaur kinds on the Ark. Full stop.</span><br />
<i style="font-family: georgia, serif; font-size: small;"><br /></i>
<i style="font-family: georgia, serif; font-size: small;">Related
articles:</i><br />
<blockquote style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2011/02/were-there-fish-on-ark.html">Were
there Fish on the Ark?</a></i></span></span></span></blockquote>
<i style="font-family: georgia, serif; font-size: small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2008/09/could-all-of-animals-fit-on-ark_9957.html">Could
All of the Animals Fit on the Ark?</a></i><br />
<i style="font-family: georgia, serif; font-size: small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2011/05/koalas-on-ark.html">Koalas
on the Ark</a></i><br />
<i style="color: #ff3333; font-family: georgia, serif;"><b><br /></b></i>
<i style="color: #ff3333; font-family: georgia, serif;"><b>1b.
Why are many Christians evolutionists?</b></i><br />
<blockquote style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">This
is such an irrelevant question that I wonder why it would be included
in a list of </span><i style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">frequently</i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"> asked questions. I could ask why some
people believe in a flat earth but what would it prove? It's as I've
already said: if something is true, it's true regardless of whoever
believes it. Suggesting that evolution might be true because some
Christians believe it has about the same merit of me suggesting
creation is true because Newton believed it.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: georgia, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: georgia, serif;">Yet
even so, I'll tell you why there are many Christians who are
evolutionists: They've been told over and over again that “evolution
is a fact.” They've been told lies like, “every field of science
supports evolution” or “nothing in biology makes sense except in
the light of evolution.” We have an entire generation of people
taught in public schools where evolution is presented as the only,
scientific model and teachers are prohibited by court decision from
even telling kids to be open minded about it. Creationists are
mocked and ridiculed by academia, the scientific community,
celebrities, and the media. We are called, “science deniers,”
“flat-earthers,” “scientifically illiterate,” and many other
names too impolite to print here.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">So,
yes, some people have been shamed or indoctrinated into believing
evolution. It doesn't mean anything.</span><br />
<i style="font-family: georgia, serif; font-size: small;"><br /></i>
<i style="font-family: georgia, serif; font-size: small;">Related
articles:</i><br />
<blockquote style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2016/07/evolution-and-christianity-make-strange.html">Evolution
and Christianity make strange bedfellows</a></i></span></span></span></blockquote>
<i style="font-family: georgia, serif; font-size: small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2010/04/do-heavens-declare-his-glory.html">Do
the Heavens Declare His Glory?</a></i><br />
<i style="font-family: georgia, serif; font-size: small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2011/03/why-i-say-evolution-is-not-compatible.html">Why
I Say Evolution is Not Compatible with the Bible</a></i><br />
<i style="color: #ff3333; font-family: georgia, serif;"><b><br /></b></i>
<i style="color: #ff3333; font-family: georgia, serif;"><b>1c.
If you are a young-earth creationist: Why are many creationists
old-earth creationists?</b></i><br />
<blockquote style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in;">
<span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>1d.
If you are a young-life creationist: Why are many creationists
old-life creationists?</b></i></span></span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">My
answers to both of these points are essentially the same so I'll
answer them both at once. The questions are completely irrelevant to
the debate. Again, I could ask, “If you believe the earth is a
globe, why do other people believe the earth is flat?” Does it
prove anything? Is it evidence of either theory?</span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
reasons some Christians believe in an old earth/life are the same
reasons some Christians believe in evolution. They've been told the
“science is settled.” They've been convinced that the things
they were told in school must be true so they ignore the plain
meaning of the Bible and twist the words to make them mean something
completely different.</span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Well
meaning Christians invent fanciful interpretations of Scripture in an
attempt to make the Bible seem compatible with “science.” It's
bad hermeneutics being used to agree with a bad theory.</span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Related
articles:</i></span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2010/09/augustine-was-young-earth-creationist.html">Augustine
was a Young-Earth Creationist!</a></i></span></span></span></blockquote>
<i style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2010/04/is-god-deceiver.html">Is
God a Deceiver?</a></i><br />
<blockquote style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: red;"><i><b>1e.
Some people say that scientific creationism does a disservice to
Christianity by holding Christianity up to ridicule. How would you
answer that charge?</b></i></span> </span></span>
</blockquote>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I've
been told this personally, many times. I'm not sure what answer the
critics are expecting. If creation is true, then what else am I to
do? I will speak the truth and bear the ridicule, taking comfort in
the knowledge that the same One who spoke the universe into existence
has also promised me an eternal reward if I am persecuted for His
sake (Matthew 5:11-12)</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: georgia, serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: georgia, serif; font-size: small;">John
6:60,66-68 says, </span><span style="color: #3333ff; font-family: georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><i>Many
therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is
an hard saying; who can hear it?... From that time many of his
disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus
unto the twelve, </i></span></span></span><span style="color: red; font-family: georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><i>Will
ye also go away?</i></span></span></span><span style="color: #3333ff; font-family: georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><i>
Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast
the words of eternal life.</i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="color: #3333ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><i><br /></i></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
truth is the truth and sometimes people don't want to hear it. Jesus
spoke the truth and some people stopped following Him because of it.
What is the solution? Do I tell a lie so that my message sounds more
appealing? Do I replace the God of the Bible with a moron of a god
who is indistinguishable from dumb luck? Should the gospel be that
you don't have to believe the Bible – just believe in Jesus? No
thank you. No thank you. And again, no thank you.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Related
articles:</i></span></span></div>
<div lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2013/02/are-creationists-embarrassment.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-US"><i>Are
Creationists an Embarrassment?</i></span></span></a></span></span></div>
<br />RKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-3125701624595638642019-05-22T11:40:00.002-04:002019-05-22T11:40:21.657-04:00Jesus wasn't plan B<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://unsplash.com/@rodlong" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="750" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwjiqTdT-ypTxP-RdFQrE11NOLwJ6Xy4EvoTdSwFe2UbbSifYuzMVRwyuTBhiG2qZHRQBxnDbi0zwI80jXd0EZxBClptcUdTiP34LRoFHMhq5jDjaHosC5avAMkwXZR8KpeWeyjHPmvo0/s400/Bible+photo.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="en-KJV-46"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="en-KJV-47"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="en-KJV-48"></a>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Genesis 2:15-17, <span style="color: #ff3333;"><i>“And
the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to
dress it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying,
Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:</i></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><i><b>
</b></i></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><i>But of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day
that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”</i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">This
passage has been a puzzle to many Christians and the subject of much
criticism from unbelievers. The question often asked is why would an
all-knowing God put the Tree in the Garden if He knew Adam would
disobey and bring the Curse on all of creation? If there were no
tree, Adam could not have eaten of it so would not have sinned by
disobeying God. No tree means no Fall, no Curse, and no history of
death in the world. In other words, if God knows everything, why
didn't He just not put the tree in the garden and spare the world
generations of misery?</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Critics
sometimes exaggerate the dilemma, hoping to raise doubt on the
omniscience of God or the plausibility of the Bible. Such criticism
could have a chilling effect on the gospel. It tries to make it look
like God made a mistake and then had to come up with the cross as a
way to fix it. Jesus was a sort of “plan B.”</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">There
are a few bad assumptions behind this criticism. First, it's
completely non sequitur as an argument for atheism. I'm not sure
exactly how it follows that, because people die, there can be no God.
You could try to make a case that He's not a loving God or that He's
not the God of the Bible but there's no reason we must necessarily
conclude that death means there's </span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>no</i></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
God. It goes back to <a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2016/10/rejecting-straw-god.html">a
point I made a few months back</a>: people have a false idea of how
God should act and, when they can't find a god that acts they way,
they conclude there must be no god at all.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
other flaw in this criticism is the assumption that eating from the
Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was the only sin Adam could have
committed. Removing the tree does not necessarily mean Adam could no
longer sin. Adam still had free will and so could have disobeyed God
in other ways. For example, God also commanded Adam and Eve to
multiply; Adam could have refused. We have to ask if it is even
possible for God to create a creature with free will but not the
ability to choose to disobey Him? It's sort of like asking if God
could create a square circle.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I
certainly can't claim to completely understand God. Indeed, if a
finite, simple man like me could completely understand Him, He
wouldn't be a very big God. But after having thought about this and
looking into His word, I think I have an inkling of why things are
they way they are.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">We
like to say that God can do anything. Of course, there are things
even God can't do. God cannot lie, for example. He cannot even be
wrong. And here is another very important thing – God cannot stop
being God. He will always be the Infinite One, the Eternal One, the
Perfect One. Logically speaking, it can be no other way.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Isaiah
46:9-11 says, <span style="color: #ff3333;"><i>“</i></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Remember
the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am
God, and there is none like me,</span></i></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><i><b>
</b></i></span></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Declaring
the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that
are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all
my pleasure:</span></i></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><i><b>
</b></i></span></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Calling
a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executes my counsel from
a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I
have purposed it, I will also do it.</span></i></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><i>”</i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Like
this passages says, there cannot be anyone like God. In logic, there
is an interesting paradox called the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_force_paradox">Irresistible
Force Paradox</a>. Essentially it says that irresistible force and
an immovable object cannot exist simultaneously. One must yield to
the other. The same is true for God. Not only must there be only
one supreme power, He must also have supreme authority. You cannot
have 2 beings with free will unless the will of one them yields to
the other. Think about it – what would happen if one god says,
“this will be blue” and the other says, “no, this will not be
blue”? One of them must yield to the other.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">When
God made man, He could have made us like robots who only can do what
He programmed us to do. That isn't what God wanted. He wanted
someone with whom He could have fellowship - someone who would have
emotions and reason similar to His. So, He created in His image.
Yet, even though we are <i>like</i> God, we cannot be <i>just like</i>
God. God wanted us to have fellowship with Him. He created us with
free will and the ability to genuinely love Him. But by giving us
free will, it was inevitable that we would disobey him. If we have
free will, there will come a point that what a man wants will
conflict with what God wants. Obviously, God would have known all
this.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">God
is love (1 John 4:7-8). Because of His perfect love, He desired an
object to love. However, His perfect justice would not allow Him to
suffer the disobedience of His creation. So when He purposed to
create us, He simultaneously would have had a plan to reconcile us to
Himself again, once we disobeyed Him. His plan was the cross!</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Revelation
13:8 refers to Jesus as, <span style="color: #ff3333;"><i>“The Lamb, slain
from the foundation of the world.” </i></span>In dutiful obedience
to the Father, Jesus created the entire universe and shaped man with
His own hands, knowing that the cost would be His own blood. It's
overwhelming to think about it. It reminds me of a moving passage
from that famous hymn: </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">And
when I think of God, His Son not sparing</span><br /><span style="font-weight: normal;">Sent
Him to die, I scarce can take it in</span><br /><span style="font-weight: normal;">That
on the Cross, my burden gladly bearing</span><br /><span style="font-weight: normal;">He
bled and died to take away my sin</span> </i></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">God
didn't make a mistake. He didn't create us without realizing the
cost. Jesus wasn't plan B. He was always the plan!</span></span></div>
<br />RKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-75080780645269663532019-04-19T08:48:00.001-04:002019-04-19T08:48:08.536-04:00So tell me again how evolution could be falsified? Conclusion<br />
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
order to bolster the claim that evolution is a valid scientific
theory, <a href="https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability_of_evolution">Rational
Wiki</a> (RW) posted an article suggesting several ways evolution
might be falsified. In a series of posts, I've already dealt with
the first 6 items on their lists and saw they were rather ridiculous
sounding. They were only slightly more substantive than saying,
<i>“Evolution would be disproved if it could be shown that animals
don't reproduce.”</i> The last two items, however, are serious
tests of the theory. Perhaps it's not a coincidence that these were
made by someone other than RW. This last post in this series will
deal with both of them but it's going to be a longer post than usual.
Let's get right to it:</span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>Charles
Darwin made the case a little differently when he said, "If it
could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not
possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find
out no such case."</b></i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Evolution
is sometimes described as “descent with modification.” A wing is
a modified leg – leg is a modified fin – and so on and so on
backward. Darwin understood that if some structure were ever
discovered that could not have possibly been formed by this series of
successive modifications, it would utterly disprove his theory. I
agree. Keep in mind, this isn't my test. It isn't RW's test. It
isn't any creationist's test. This is <i>Darwin's</i> test. So if
we ever found such a structure, Darwin himself believed it would
<span style="color: #6666ff;"><i>“absolutely break down”</i></span> his
theory.</span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe">Michael
Behe</a> is a biochemist who invented the term, “<a href="https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/michael_behe_255340">irreducible
complexity.</a>” In his own words it means, </span></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">“</span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">a
single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts
that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one
of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.”</span></i></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
To illustrate this, he used the example of a mousetrap. A mousetrap
has very few working parts. However, if any part is missing, the
entire trap becomes useless. Since all of the parts have to be
present before a mousetrap has any function, Behe believed the
mousetrap was a good analogy of the type of structure Darwin meant. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.eoht.info/photo/15186440/Behe+mousetrap+analogy" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="312" data-original-width="671" height="296" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0uxaK_SltyP4X4HlFo5vZPhl1Yh-3EcaeZuwkGTWbo1h5QRZzOBPYWWghuLXWjSCOgd5LnY7XiuQem7_9OpEI995bZkmeV_PxRTsT3cMLuIduVQLLVf5eD3-cNDlL1wpqL0SQRy_h_2o/s640/Behe+illustration.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
his research as a biochemist, Behe has examined the flagellum, a
whip-like structure which single-celled creatures use to move
themselves around. The flagellum is very complex and has several
working parts. Behe claims that the flagellum is irreducibly
complex. Since no single part of the flagellum would have any
function at all, Behe claims it could not have evolved in gradual
steps, since it would have no function until all of the parts were
together. Behe claims it qualifies as the type of structure Darwin
said would disprove his theory. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Proponents
of evolution have attacked Behe's arguments from a variety of angles.
From <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13663-evolution-myths-the-bacterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex/">NewScientist</a>,
we read the following:</span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>The
best studied flagellum, of the E. coli bacterium, contains around 40
different kinds of proteins. Only 23 of these proteins, however, are
common to all the other bacterial flagella studied so far. Either a
“designer” created thousands of variants on the flagellum or,
contrary to creationist claims, it is possible to make considerable
changes to the machinery without mucking it up. What’s more, of
these 23 proteins, it turns out that just two are unique to flagella.
The others all closely resemble proteins that carry out other
functions in the cell. This means that the vast majority of the
components needed to make a flagellum might already have been present
in bacteria before this structure appeared.</i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Now,
this may be a fair criticism of Behe's claims. People on both sides
of the debate could argue their points – which is how science is
supposed to work. However, in their zeal to protect their theory,
NewScientist overplays its hand and reveals the true attitude of the
folks on their side. They will never accept that any structure is
irreducibly complex. I direct your attention to the last few
paragraphs of the article (bold added):</span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #6666ff;">… <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>[T]he
fact that today’s biologists cannot provide a definitive account of
how every single structure or organism evolved <b>proves nothing
about design versus evolution</b>. Biology is still in its infancy,
and even when our understanding of life and its history is far more
complete, our ability to reconstruct what happened billions of years
ago will still be limited. Think of a stone archway: hundreds of
years after the event, how do you prove how it was built? It might
not be possible to prove that the builders used wooden scaffolding to
support the arch when it was built, but this does not mean they
levitated the stone blocks into place. In such cases Orgel’s Second
Rule should be kept in mind: “Evolution is cleverer than you are.”</i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
other words, no structure, no matter how complex, no matter how many
parts have to be present before the structure works, and no matter
that none of the parts could serve in any other function that we can
determine, will ever serve to satisfy this test of the theory. Even
if we cannot imagine how some structure evolved, it has no bearing on
whether it evolved because “evolution” found a way we can't think
of. So, while Darwin and I think this would be a way to potentially
falsify his theory, it's more of an exercise in futility because
evolutionists can resort to “we just don't know how it happened.”
They always have; they always will.</span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #ff3333;"><i><b>J.B.S.
Haldane famously stated that "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian"
would disprove evolution - and this has been a talking point in
philosophy of science for some time.</b></i></span> </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
Cambrian Period is a geological era believed by scientists to have
occurred around 540 million years ago. Cambrian strata is remarkable
for its abundance of diverse fossils whereas, strata below the
Cambrian - aka “Precambrian” - are largely empty of fossils. The
sudden appearance of fossils representing so many diverse animal
phyla is so startling, many people have used the term “<a href="https://burgess-shale.rom.on.ca/en/science/origin/04-cambrian-explosion.php">Cambrian
explosion</a>” to describe it. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">According
to evolutionary theory, life began as “simple,” single-celled
creatures which gradually became more complex over millions of years.
Rock layers are also laid down gradually, over millions of years,
and so the fossils found in each rock layer create a sort of snap
shot of life on earth at the time the layer was laid down. The
earliest and “simplest” life forms should be lower down in the
geological column. The more recent and more evolved life formed
should be higher up. Precambrian rocks, therefore, should only have
fossils of the earliest and simplest creatures.</span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="cite_ref-4"></a><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">When
asked what might falsify evolution, a British-Indian scientist, named
J.B.S. Haldane, famously quipped, “rabbits in the Precambrian.”
His point was that, since rabbits are believed to have evolved
relatively recently, finding rabbit fossils with the earliest life
forms would be problematic for the theory. Richard Dawkins echoed a
similar sentiment when he said, “</span><span style="color: #3333ff;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Evolution
could so easily be disproved if just a single fossil turned up in the
wrong date order</span></i></span><span style="font-weight: normal;">”
(<a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2016/09/ten-lies-evolutionists-tell-part-1.html">lie
#1</a> from my list of lies evolutionists tell). </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">I
agree that such a discovery would be extremely damaging to the theory
of evolution. However, it's somewhat unlikely that such a discovery
will be made. I believe the sequence of fossils better indicates
</span><i><b>where</b></i><span style="font-weight: normal;"> a
creature lived/died rather than </span><i><b>when</b></i><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
Think about it. If a deluge of water and mud suddenly buried
everything, here's what I think we'd find: bottom dwelling marine
animals would be buried first, then swimming animals, then amphibious
animals, then reptiles and birds and mammals at the top. Well, that
is sort of what we find. I say “sort of” because even
terrestrial fossils are always found in layers with marine animals.
I would not expect to find rabbits being buried with creatures at the
bottom of the ocean. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Even
though it's not probable that the Flood would bury rabbits with
trilobites, it's not entirely impossible and so, once again, I think
this is a fair test of the theory. Of course, it doesn't just apply
to rabbits; any, grossly “out of order” fossils should be
evidence against evolution. Dawkins said even </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">“a
single fossil”</span></i><span style="font-weight: normal;"> could
disprove the theory if it </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">“turned
up in the wrong date order.”</span></i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
Unfortunately, he doesn't mean it. We routinely find fossils in
places we didn't think they'd be. Just do a google search on the
term, “fossil rethink evolution” and you'll find plenty of
examples. So even though there have been thousands of out-of-order
fossils found over the past few decades, I haven't seen any headline
that say any one of them have disproved evolution. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Saying
out of order fossils would disprove evolution, when so many have
already been found, shows this isn't a serious test but it mere
posturing. Even RW, in the same paragraph, hedges its bet just in
case something like a Precambrian rabbit is every found. From the
article we read this:</span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #ff3333;">“<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
simple truth is that a single strange fossil would probably not make
much difference. In practice, the evidence in the fossil record which
supports evolution is so overwhelming that a single fossil would be
regarded as curious certainly, but compared to the mountain of
evidence in favor of evolution it would probably be regarded as an
anomaly while more data was awaited... However, the existence of
entire groups of anomalous fossils would be a different thing —
Haldane did say rabbit</span><b>s </b><span style="font-weight: normal;">after
all. Again, in practice an effort would initially be made to fit the
new data into the existing framework — this is not cheating but
simply the way science works. But still, in principle some quite
major revisions to the theory may be needed to explain them. Such a
situation would </span><b>not </b><span style="font-weight: normal;">immediately
and conclusively prove a special creation over a naturalistic
evolution.</span><span style="font-weight: normal;">”</span></i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">So...
what are you saying, RW? That not even rabbit</span><b>s</b><span style="font-weight: normal;">
in the Precambrian would conclusive disprove evolution? Yeah, that's
what I thought you were saying. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">If
you googled the phrase, “new discovery rewrites evolution,” you
would find a mile long list of articles describing times researchers
have found some new thing that causes them to completely change how
they understood some part of evolution. Yet even though they were
shown to be so wrong about something they thought they knew about
evolution, no discovery causes mainstream science to ever question
the theory itself. It's always more like, “We didn't understand
how this thing evolved,” rather than “Now we're not sure if
evolution happened at all.” </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Since
failed predictions are usually considered evidence against a theory,
frustrated creationists have asked what type of discovery it would
take to falsify evolution. Any scientific theory should be
predictive and falsifiable but the theory of evolution seems
unaffected by any amount of contrary evidence.</span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">There
you have it, folks. RW's entire list of possible ways evolution
might be falsified is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. There is
nothing predictive or falsifiable about evolution. It is a worthless
theory and not relevant to any other field of science. It is propped
up only by psuedo-science and the willingness of sinful, rebellious
people to believe a lie. I know that no amount of evidence will
persuade them. At the very least, I hope the realization that what
they believe is nothing more than a blind faith might soften their
stubbornness.</span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Read
the entire series:</i></span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2019/03/so-tell-me-again-how-evolution-could-be.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Introduction</i></span></a></span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2019/03/so-tell-me-again-how-evolution-could-be_13.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Part
2</i></span></a></span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2019/03/so-tell-me-again-how-evolution-could-be_29.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Part
3</i></span></a></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"></span></span><br />
RKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-88477987202886881082019-03-29T08:52:00.000-04:002019-04-19T08:53:14.839-04:00So tell me again how evolution could be falsified? Part 3<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">For
any scientific theory to be valid, it must make predictions and be
falsifiable. This isn't my rule, it belongs to the scientific
community at large and the theory of evolution should be no exception
to this rule. It's been my experience, though, that no discovery, no
matter how contrary it is our understanding of evolution, seems to be
enough to make evolutionists question the theory itself. I read
articles with headlines like: “New discovery rewrites the history
of human evolution.” Yet I suspect I'll never see an article
titled something like, “New discovery casts doubt on the theory of
evolution.” They have to admit to being wrong about where, when,
and how things evolved but nothing – NOTHING – will ever make
some people doubt that things are still evolved. It's very curious.</span><br />
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Out
of frustration, creationists have often asked, “If evolution is a
valid, scientific theory, what is a way it might be falsified?”
Usually, we don't receive an answer beyond bluff and bluster, but
they can't duck the question forever. Rational Wiki (RW) has an
article titled, <a href="https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability_of_evolution">Falsifiability
of evolution</a>, where they list several ways the theory could be
falsified. I examined the first three from their list in my last
post and showed how they really weren't serious tests of the theory.
I was going to address the next few items from list in this post but
[SPOILER ALERT] it's more of the same. I even thought about
abandoning this series because, after pointing out the weaknesses in
the first 3 items on the list, the similar weaknesses in the other
items become rather glaring. I'll touch on the items later but I
thought it might be a good idea to back up a minute and address the
premise RW used when making these “predictions.”</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">From
the RW article, we read, </span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">“[I]</span></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">t
is best to be clear what evolution is. It is based on three main
principles: variation, heritability and selection. Given these three
principles, evolution </span></span></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">must</span></i></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></i></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">occur,
and many features of evolution appear given only these three guiding
principles. If any of these were shown to be flawed then the theory
would be untenable.</span></span></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">”</span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span>[italics in original]</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I
think it's admirable of RW to want to be “clear” about what
evolution is because there seems to be a lot of equivocation over the
word. The theory of evolution includes the common descent of all
biodiversity from a single ancestor. Evolution also includes fish
becoming frogs, dinosaurs becoming birds, and ape becoming men.
“Evolution” includes a lot of things that are in contention but
RW claims it wants to be “clear.” <i>//RKBentley rolls his
eyes//</i></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://unsplash.com/@yunu06_dinata" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="501" data-original-width="334" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOdfJXnis9VHTbrjsrirAklxP5cVOsP7SuzsengCNj0Kt43kTA5qW1dVEAq2rPZEBVBK92c2Wd2QCcjx58IyStWy4B-3d7aKXro23fdmKMcGiGXUwGo7i5GEM04zRlk9Ksk_XLKmSkwp8/s400/Gray+mouse.jpg" width="266" /></a><span id="goog_455794090"></span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/"></a><span id="goog_455794091"></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Let's
take those three principles and apply them to a hypothetical
population of black and gray mice. In one particular environment,
gray might be a better camouflage than black so predators will tend
to eat the black mice more often than the gray. The gray mice, then,
will tend to live longer and have more offspring and the black mice
will leave less offspring. Over time, the entire population of mice
will become mostly gray or totally gray. We can see all three of
RW's principles in action. Are you with me so far?</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">What
has happened to the mice fits the technical definition of evolution.
It is a change in the frequency of the gray allele in the population.
There is no debate over this type of change and if people want to
call it “evolution” then you could call me an evolutionist. But
how does this type of change show that all life has descended from a
common ancestor? How can this type of change add feathers to a
dinosaur? It doesn't! </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">What
RW has done is described <i>natural selection</i> and called it
<i>evolution</i>. They are taking something we do observe (natural
selection) and using it as evidence for something we don't observe
(evolution). Therefore, the first six items they present are
actually things that might potentially falsify natural selection –
<i>not evolution</i>. The problem with this, though, is that natural
selection is an observed phenomenon. We watch it happen all the
time. You can imagine how difficult it would be to look at
something, then try to prove the thing you're looking at doesn't
exist. You really can't and that's the challenge RW faces in
disproving natural selection. As I said in my last post, RW has
resorted to taking things that are already known to occur and saying,
“If this didn't occur, evolution wouldn't be possible.” That's
sort of like saying, “If a bowling ball weren't round, it wouldn't
roll.” </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So,
having said all that, let's look at 2 of the next 3 items from RW's
list:</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><i><b>[A]ny
of the following would destroy the theory [of evolution]...</b></i></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><i><b>If
it could be shown that selection
or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of
better adapted individuals.</b></i></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><i><b>If
it could be shown that even though selection
or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better
adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any
one time) are not shown to change into other species.</b></i></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Notice
how they even use the word, “selection” in their tests? So if
“natural selection” didn't favor the better adapted, evolution
wouldn't be possible. If rearrangements of already existing traits
didn't produce new species, evolution wouldn't be possible. Since
they're conflating <i>natural selection</i> with <i>evolution</i>, RW
is essentially saying, “If evolution didn't happen, it wouldn't
happen.” And if a bowling ball weren't round, it wouldn't be a
ball. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Darwin
saw the similarities between different species of finches and
realized little changes in the environment would favor certain
traits. Over time, the more favored traits would become the most
common traits in the population and a species would be better adapted
to its environment. Over a really long time, the accumulation of
small changes could become big changes – like a leg becoming a
wing. That's the theory of evolution. Darwin used the little
changes he observed to invent his theory. Now, RW is claiming that
these observed, little changes are “predictions” of the theory.
It's all incredibly circular.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Having
said all that, RW did make one claim that is interesting. They said,
[It would destroy evolution...]</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><i><b><span style="font-size: small;">If
it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no
mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive
</span><span style="font-size: small;">natural
selection</span><span style="font-size: small;">.</span></b></i></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">We've
already discussed how mutations are already known to occur in the DNA
of any organism. Also, we already know mutations are inherited by
its offspring so neither of these could really be said could
potentially falsify evolution. However, RW is saying mutations must
produce the kinds of changes that drive evolution. Actually, they
said, drive natural selection but I've already discussed how they
conflate the terms.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Mutations
are sometimes “expressed” - that is, they have some, physical
affect on the host organism. A beetle might be born without wings; a
fish might be born without eyes; an elephant might be born without
tusks; etc. We sometimes call these types of expressed mutations,
“birth defects.” </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
some environments, these types of birth defects may give an organism
an advantage. On a windy island, for example, flying beetles have a
chance of being blown out to sea so a beetle born without wings may
have a better chance of surviving. Natural Selection is the blind
judge that determines if a birth defect conveys any advantage and if
wingless beetles replace all the flying beetles on the island, some
people will say that species has “evolved.” </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
problem with this scenario is that beetles being born without wings
doesn't explain how wings on beetles evolved in the first place.
I've said before that you can't make a molehill into a mountain by
removing dirt so beetles loosing their wings doesn't make a very good
case for evolution. For evolution to be possible, populations must
acquire <i><span style="font-weight: normal;">novel</span></i> traits.
To turn a reptile into a mammal, for example, you would have to add
hair. The alleged first living organism didn't have hair – nor
scales nor skin nor bones nor blood. To turn a microbe into a man,
it would require a billion successive generations of organisms
acquiring traits they've never had before. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">It's
not enough to observe beneficial mutations and call it evolution. If
the theory of common descent were true, trait-adding mutations would
have to happen fairly regularly. We should have plenty of examples.
So where are they? I ask in earnest because, in all the years I've
been asking evolutionists, I only ever hear the same 3 or 4
questionable examples. Why? It's because trait-adding mutations are
astonishingly scare or non-existent.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
glaring lack of examples of trait-adding mutations, which are
virtually demanded by the theory, is strong evidence against the
theory. It's a nice try of RW to claim natural selection acting on
mutations is evidence for the theory but, on this point, I'm going to
have to give evolution a big fail.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Related
articles:</i></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2012/09/does-natural-selection-create-diversity.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Does
Natural Selection Create Diversity?</i></span></a></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2012/05/natural-selection-is-opposite-of.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Natural
Selection is the Opposite of Evolution!</i></span></a></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2012/06/mutations-make-creature-more-evolved.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Mutations
Make a Creature More Evolved?</i></span></a></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2012/06/trait-adding-mutations-ill-show-you-why.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Trait-adding
Mutations? I Show You Why More is Sometimes Less</i></span></a></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Read
this entire series:</i></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2019/03/so-tell-me-again-how-evolution-could-be.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Introduction</i></span></a></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2019/03/so-tell-me-again-how-evolution-could-be_13.html">Part 2</a></i></span></span></span><br />
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2019/04/so-tell-me-again-how-evolution-could-be.html">Conclusion</a></i></span></span></span></span></span></div>
</div>
RKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-42434211254854002372019-03-13T13:35:00.002-04:002019-04-19T08:54:18.330-04:00So tell me again how evolution could be falsified? Part 2<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
my last post, I talked about two traits that are critical to any
scientific theory: it must be <b>predictive</b> and <b>falsifiable.</b>
Evolution has often been criticized as a scientific theory on the
grounds that it isn't falsifiable. No discovery, no matter how
contrary it is to our current understanding of evolution, would ever
make mainstream scientists question the theory. I'm not
exaggerating. It's such a problem that frustrated creationists will
simply ask, “what <i>is</i> something that, if found, would falsify
evolution?” </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">Rational
Wiki (RW), has an article they titled, “<a href="https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability_of_evolution">Falsifiability
of evolution.</a>” In their own words, they say, </span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">[A]ny
of the following would destroy the entire theory [of evolution].</span></i></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Now
that's fairly committal of them. Thank you. However, as I look over
the list, I can hardly believe they're sincere. You'll see what I
mean by this in a minute. In this post, we're going to look at three
points to see how well they actually test the theory.</span></span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>[The
theory of evolution would be destroyed] If it could be shown that
organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.</b></i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">It's
hard to imagine a scenario where two, sexual creatures would have
identical DNA. The first thing that comes to my mind is identical
twins. This occurs when a single, fertilized egg splits and each
half develops into an embryo. So RW is saying if identical twins
weren't identical, evolution would be disproved. They can't be
serious. <i>//RKBentley shakes his head//</i> You can see what I
meant when I said these hardly seem like sincere tests of the theory.
But, OK – let's go with this for a moment.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/8-rErfjcr1k" target="_blank"><img alt=" Photo by Unsplash" border="0" data-original-height="501" data-original-width="752" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjusELi6dZ9FDTSKbvxokRMzprBLCNPl19N632ES2bc10r7s5ipB3jbtAnbQVsUycVl7NX8vs63lQ5YOLviUVJivdt1uRlUcjUk9eGkSu-EhNWwUQsyyQINgM3t2TiNEoWHTURP-B3UdZs/s640/Twins.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">If
you know any identical twins, you've probably noticed they usually
don't really look </span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">identical</span></i></span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">.
They look similar, of course, but each is distinct enough that they
can be told apart. Part of this is because of environmental factors
– one twin might have a different diet and so will weigh more, the
other might play sports and be more muscular, </span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>et
cetera. </i></span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">It used to be
that the differences between identical twins were always attributed
to environmental factors but further studies in genetics has
suggested this isn't always the case. One <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical/">Scientific
American</a> headline reads, </span><span style="color: #3333ff;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>“Identical
Twins' Genes Are Not Identical. Twins may appear to be cut from the
same cloth but their genes reveal a different pattern.”</i></span></span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
Hmm. That's interesting. From the article we read this: </span></span><span style="color: #3333ff;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Geneticist
Carl Bruder of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and his
colleagues closely compared the genomes of 19 sets of adult identical
twins. In some cases, one twin's DNA differed from the other's at
various points on their genomes. At these sites of genetic
divergence, one bore a different number of copies of the same gene, a
genetic state called copy number variants.</span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: #323232;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Well
there you have it folks! The differences observed in identical twins
aren't necessarily due to environmental factors; sometimes they're
</span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">genetic
differences!</span></i></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
Put a fork in it, the theory of evolution is done! But we all know
it isn't. This highlights the frustration creationists face. I
doubt RW will write a rebuttal to this point but, if they did, they
would certainly be walking back how my example really doesn't address
what they were looking for and maybe this isn't even a good test of
the theory anyway. </span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
tests of the theory suggested by evolutionists are usually extremely
vague and seldom sincere. </span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>If
it could be shown that mutations do not occur.</b></i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Another
ridiculous suggestion. We already know that mutations occur in the
DNA so how could we show they don't occur? Consider this analogy:
suppose I have $20,000 in my bank account. I accidentally leave my
bank statement open on my desk and my supervisor sees my balance.
Not believing I could have legitimately saved that much money, he
accuses me of embezzlement. I protest and tell him I've been saving
that money for years. He refuses to believe me. Frustrated, I ask
him what it would take to convince him I'm innocent? He answers,
“Easy, just show me that you don't have $20,000 in the bank!” Do
you see the parallel there? We already know that do mutations occur,
so to say evolution would be falsified if they didn't occur is
disingenuous. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I've
seen many so called “tests” of this sort. One person actually
told me evolution could be falsified if it could be shown that
animals don't reproduce. <i>//RKBentley, still shaking his head//</i></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I
believe what these people are trying to say is that evolution
wouldn't be possible if mutations do not occur. We'll actually talk
about that in a second, but such a point is ridiculously obvious.
It's like saying evolution could not have happened if animals didn't
reproduce. We don't need evolutionists to point to something that
already happens and say, <i>“Evolution couldn't be true if that
thing didn't happen.”</i> What we want is someone to say, “If we
ever found <i>thing-x</i>, it would prove evolution didn't happen.”
Do you have anything like that?</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>If
it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed
down through the generations.</b></i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">This
suffers from the same flaw as the previous suggestion because we
already know mutations can be inherited. However, this brings up
another problem with the theory – namely, that <i>evolution</i> is
poorly defined. Let me explain.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
biological terms, the most preferred <a href="https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Evolution+(biology)">definition
of evolution</a> is usually something like this: <span style="color: #6666ff;"><i>A
ch</i></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">ange
in the genetic composition of a population during successive
generations, often resulting in the development of new species.</span></i></span><span style="color: #404040;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">In
other words, if 50% of a group of mice are gray in one generation,
then 55% are gray in the next generation, the population has
“evolved” </span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">by
definition</span></i></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
However, this type of “evolution” doesn't even require there to
be any mutations. So if evolution can occur without mutations, then
whether or not mutations occur or are inherited is irrelevant to the
theory! How, then, can they be used to test the theory?! </span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">If
these three items are meant to be serious tests of the theory of
evolution, then the theory doesn't have much concern about being
disproved any time soon. Perhaps that's why the the people at RW
chose them.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Stay
tuned for more of the same in my next post!</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Related
articles:</i></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-subtle-lie-of-definition.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>The
subtle lie of definition</i></span></a></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Read
this entire series:</i></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2019/03/so-tell-me-again-how-evolution-could-be.html">Introduction</a></i></span></span></span><br />
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2019/03/so-tell-me-again-how-evolution-could-be_29.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Part
3</i></span></a></span></span></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span></span></span>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2019/04/so-tell-me-again-how-evolution-could-be.html">Conclusion</a></i></span></span></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span></span></span></div>
RKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-1658475994296978112019-03-08T08:54:00.002-05:002019-04-19T08:49:23.489-04:00So tell me again how evolution could be falsified? Introduction<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">From
</span><a href="https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability_of_evolution" style="font-family: georgia, serif;">RationalWiki</a><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">
(RW), we read the following:</span><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #6666ff;"><i>The
falsifiability of evolution is an important part of establishing
evolution as a scientific theory on the principles of
falsifiability.... A central characteristic of science is that it
must be falsifiable; this feature of a theory is attributed to Karl
Popper, who mentioned it in a criticism of Darwinism. Scientific
theories cannot be proven outright – they can only fail to be
disproven, and this means pointing out what evidence could disprove
the theory. If a theory cannot be disproven, such as with Russell's
Teapot, it makes no difference whether it is true either way.</i></span><span style="color: #252525;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Wow,
there's some bad grammar going on there. “Science” is the
methodology we use to study something. Surely they don't mean
“science” must be falsifiable. What they should say is that
“scientific theories” must be falsifiable. Yikes. Anyway, in
their own words, a good theory must be <i>falsifiable</i>. Am I
misrepresenting anything? Isn't that what they're saying? OK, then
on to my next point.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
addition to falsifiability, another characteristic of a good theory
is that it must be <i>predictive</i>. A prediction is basically to
say that, if a theory is true, then we might expect a certain other
thing to be true. I might say, for example, that hair is unique to
mammals. If my theory is true, then I could predict that, if there
is hair on any creature we ever discover, it will be a mammal.
Predictions go hand in hand with falsifiability. If we ever
discovered a cold-blooded, egg-laying, gill-breathing creature with
hair, my theory would be proven false. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://unsplash.com/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt=" Photo courtesy of Unsplash" border="0" data-original-height="1068" data-original-width="1600" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEAQmKoxpeu8CR26I4uV4KqTIc8Qrg4trPjxyXGM0EJFTu1pYjS_MDJq9XLtmk0uFezP0WX6e-4ZJjuqPrJ1OcKhvFGXqhmafjO4IJnm3WUGu5g-PP0TqIzoU8TXlhrzKr4yR4QZQO0tc/s400/Colors.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Let
me give you an analogy that might demonstrate how important these two
things are to a scientific theory. Suppose I wanted to mix paint to
make new colors. I would need to know which colors to mix to make
the color I want. If there were a “color theory” that <i>predicted</i>
yellow and blue together make green, then that's useful information
if I wanted to make green paint. If I mix yellow and blue paint and
actually get green paint, then I might use that theory to help me
with other color combinations. However, if the “color theory”
said yellow and blue could make green, red, or any other color, then
the theory isn't predictive and isn't useful to me at all. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Now
suppose the theory predicted yellow and blue would only make green,
but when I mixed yellow and blue, I got red. In that case, I would
know the theory doesn't make successful predictions. You could say
it has been <i>falsified</i>. The inventor of the “color theory”
might try to say that yellow and blue should make green but he can
“explain” why it made red. OK, but the next time I mix them, I
get brown. He then “explains” why I got brown. If he has an
explanation every time I don't get blue, then there's really no way
to falsify the theory. We're back to the problem that the theory
isn't predictive but neither is it falsifiable. It's a useless
theory.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">That
the theory of evolution is neither predictive nor falsifiable is a
complaint often leveled against evolutionists. Creationists have
often asked for concrete examples ways to test the theory. What are
some specific, useful predictions that it makes and what are some
things that, if we found them, would falsify the theory? I've asked
this many times of many people and I usually get one of three
responses:</span></span></div>
<ul>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">A
flat dismissal of my question, sometimes accompanied with elephant
hurling – something like, <i>“Evolution is the most tested
theory in science and is supported by mountains of evidence!”</i></span></span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">A
turn of the tables in an effort to put the creationist on the
defense – that is, <i>“Oh yeah, well how would you falsify
creation?”</i></span></span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">On
very rare occasions, someone will suggest something that they claim
– if found – would disprove evolution.</span></span></div>
</li>
</ul>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">It's
that last response that I'm most interested in yet it's the one that
I almost never hear. For whatever reason, evolutionists are
reluctant to enumerate concrete examples. I suspect it's because
they fear that if they commit to some hypothetical example, maybe
someday such a thing might someday be found. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
RW article I linked above actually discusses a few examples of things
they claim could falsify evolution. I started writing a short
response to each point RW raised but my post started to get way too
long. Instead, I'm going to make a series. Check back soon for my
first response to the first two points.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"></span></span><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Related
articles:</i></span></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
</span></span>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2015/05/failed-predictions-of-evolutionary.html"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Failed
Predictions of Evolutionary Theories</i></span></span></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2008/06/evolution-is-easy-to-falsify.html"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Evolution
is Easy to Falsify</i></span></span></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2012/02/talk-origins-says-evolution-can-be.html"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Talk
Origins Says Evolution Can Be Falsified</i></span></span></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-unique-does-it-have-to-be.html"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>How
Unique Does It Have To Be?</i></span></span></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Read
this entire series:</i></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2019/03/so-tell-me-again-how-evolution-could-be_13.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Part
2</i></span></a></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2019/03/so-tell-me-again-how-evolution-could-be_29.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Part
3</i></span></a></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2019/04/so-tell-me-again-how-evolution-could-be.html">Conclusion</a></i></span></span></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
</span></span></div>
RKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-36624481246542414522018-12-19T13:34:00.001-05:002018-12-24T08:21:29.267-05:00Epicurus: Some more thoughts on the problem of evil<span style="font-family: georgia, serif;">I'd
written </span><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2011/07/epicurus-riddle-problem-of-evil.html" style="font-family: georgia, serif;">a
post</a><span style="font-family: georgia, serif;"> several years ago dealing with the Epicurus riddle. As is
often the case, though, there's a lot that can be said on certain
subjects and this is one such subject. I still stand by what I wrote
then but, since this is a very broad issue and one that is discussed
frequently, I thought I'd refine some of the points I'd made back
then and maybe add a thing or two.</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="800" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4ZRe3vL5y-bbOe5fsLyzdCzRtRVycSVZyMzLaFmWJg5r2F1mz28NC3hn0bua9qF3aE1u7_I6QpzyzC3LktCfbNUmx45av59KXtiW_iaL9rjF7On5KBwnMCuRjQjZ4bWRFenqNzejtXEU/s400/Epicurus+bust.jpg" width="266" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
Epicurus Riddle goes like this:</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Is
God willing to prevent evil, but not able?</span></span></span><br /><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Then
he is not omnipotent.</span></span></span><br /><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Is
he able, but not willing?</span></span></span><br /><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Then
he is malevolent.</span></span></span><br /><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Is
he both able and willing?</span></span></span><br /><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Then
whence cometh evil?</span></span></span><br /><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Is
he neither able nor willing?</span></span></span><br /><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Then
why call him God?</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Being
Greek, and having lived before Christ, Epicurus certainly wasn't
talking about Christianity, but his same arguments have been used to
attack the God of the Bible. It's a series of questions meant to
highlight the “problem of evil” and create some sort of dilemma
for Christians: if God is good and omnipotent, why does He allow
evil? The conclusion the critic wants us to draw is that God doesn't
stop evil because there really is no god. As is always the case, any
opinion that is not founded on the rock of Christ is founded on sand
and cannot bear scrutiny. I see a few failings with this argument.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">If an
unbeliever wants to leverage evil to prove the nonexistence of God,
he must first explain what he means by “evil.” As simple as that
might sound, this is a real problem for unbelievers. If there were
no god, then there is no greater being who administers justice. The
universe would be all there is and the universe doesn't care what
happens. An apple falling from a tree, a lion eating a zebra, one
man killing another man, are just inconsequential events that happen
while an indifferent cosmos just chugs along for billions of more
years.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">A star
1 billion light-years away goes nova and destroys a solar system?
The universe doesn't care.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">A
meteor strikes the earth 60 million years ago and kills all the
dinosaurs? The universe doesn't care.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">A
tsunami hits the coast of Japan and kills tens of thousands of
people? The universe doesn't care.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">A man
pushes an old lady down and steals her purse? The universe doesn't
care.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Of
course, some things affect us more than others. I might not care
about the rabbit fleeing from a wolf or a distant star going nova.
However, I do care about a tsunami or an old lady being assaulted.
What makes some things evil and not others? Does “evil” mean
only “things we don't like”? Without an objective, transcendent
standard of what makes a thing “evil,” Epicurus might as well
have asked, “Why does God allow things I don't like?” Of course,
that doesn't have the same ring to it, does it?</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Unbelievers
regularly display a sort of schizophrenia. They claim to believe
there is no god, yet still live their lives as though there were.
It's like a deluded person who claims not to believe in gravity but
still knows better than to step off a building. You cannot question
God about the existence of evil without first acknowledging that
there is a such thing as evil. Yet evil can only exist if God
exists, so to even claim there is “evil” is to tacitly
acknowledge there must be a God. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Let's
concede, for the sake of argument, that evil is just a term we use to
describe anything that affects the greater good of humanity.
Something like stealing, for example, might be called evil because it
helps one person but harms another. Never mind that it's not evil
when a lion steals a zebra that a cheetah has killed. We can all
agree that it's wrong for one human to steal from another... unless
maybe it's to help someone. I mean, what if I stole a loaf of bread
from a rich person so that I could feed my poor, starving family for
a day? Does the skeptic believe God should not allow me to do this?
A quick thinking skeptic might point out that, if God is willing and
able to do good, then my family shouldn't be starving. I raise this
point only to say that there is a spectrum of what we consider right
and wrong. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Is
rape wrong? Is pedophilia wrong? Is incest wrong? Is homosexuality
wrong? Is adultery wrong? Is premarital sex wrong? Is viewing
pornography wrong? Since the skeptic has no transcendent standard
that says what is right and what is wrong, where to draw the line is
somewhat subjective. Different people will draw the line at
different places and who is to say which is the correct place? Many
will say there is nothing wrong with looking at porn even though the
Bible equates lust with adultery. So, does the skeptic mean God
should not allow pornography? Should He not allow premarital sex?
Which of his own sins does the skeptic expect God to punish him for?
You see, most people who would use this argument really only mean for
God to stop the <i>really</i> bad people but let the unbeliever
practice his own pet sin. Anyone can justify his own sin by saying
someone else is worse but if you expect God to deal with sin, be
prepared for Him to deal with <i><b>your</b></i> sins as well!</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I've
watched several videos made by Ray Comfort where he asks people on
the street to judge themselves. He asks them, for example, is it
wrong to lie? Most people will say, yes. Of course, these same
people will all admit to telling many lies. In fact, every one of us
has broken all of God's commandments and so are guilty before God.
You want God to do something about sin? OK, since we're all guilty,
how would you feel if God just destroyed the world now? That would
be just. It's certainly within His right. The fact that He allows
evil to continue for a while is not because He is uncaring but rather
because He is merciful. God is not willing that any should perish
but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">We
sometimes expect God to act a certain way. When Jesus came into
Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, the people praised Him saying, “Save us,
Son of David.” They thought Jesus would be a conqueror who would
deliver them from Roman tyranny. They were looking for the Lion of
Judah. They didn't understand that Jesus first had come to be a
Lamb. In a very real sense, He did come to save them – just not
they way they expected. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">God
has a different plan, a better plan, for dealing with sin. He took
on flesh, became a man, lived a perfect life – one undeserving of
death, and then shed His blood on the Cross as the payment for our
sin. If we repent of our sins and believe in Him, we pass from death
unto life. One day soon, the worries of this world will seem like a
fleeting moment, the blink of an eye that is over as we go on to live
an eternity in a paradise He has prepared for us. God is not only
willing and able to deal with evil, He has already done it!!</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">If you
ask me, it is unbelief that is truly a riddle. People want to deny
God. They want to mock the sacrifice of His Son. They want to
flout the Law and live their lives however they want, indulging the
most base desires of their flesh. Then they have the nerve to ask
why God allows bad things to happen to them?! Incredible!</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Galatians
6:7, <span style="color: #6666ff;"><i>Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for
whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. </i></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Related
articles:</i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2018/04/what-is-morality.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>What
is morality?</i></span></a></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2016/08/can-god-forgive-really-really-really.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Can
God forgive really really really really really bad people?</i></span></a></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2017/10/a-friendly-atheist-has-78-questions-for.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>A
Friendly Atheist Has 78 Questions for Christians</i></span></a></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2016/10/rejecting-straw-god.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Rejecting
a straw god</i></span></a></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2010/12/god-sent-lamb.html">God
sent a Lamb</a></i></span></span></span></span></div>
RKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-46309729053832057422018-12-17T14:19:00.002-05:002018-12-17T14:19:47.092-05:00A Rebuttal to the Free Will Argument for the Nonexistence of God<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Barker">Dan
Barker</a> is a former evangelical, Christian preacher turned zealous
atheist. He and his wife, Annie Gaylor, co-preside over the activist
atheist group, Freedom From Religion. He also spends a lot of time
debating Christians. By the way, in his own words, his apostasy
began with a rejection of a historical Adam & Eve and his
embracing of evolution – but that will have to be the subject of
another post. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I
was watching a <a href="https://youtu.be/oPi073maMRw">video on
YouTube</a> where Barker was debating Matt Slick of <a href="https://carm.org/">CARM.org</a>
about the existence of God. I normally invite people to watch the
whole video but it's pretty long. If you're interested in watching,
the part I'll be discussing was raised by Barker in his opening
comments beginning at about 20 minutes into the video but, for the
sake of brevity, I found an article online where he explains his
point more concisely. He calls this, <a href="https://ffrf.org/legacy/about/bybarker/fang.php">The
Freewill Argument for the Non-existence of God</a> (FANG, for short).
In his article, we find the following summary:</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>The
Christian God is defined as a personal being who knows everything.
According to Christians, personal beings have free will.</i></span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 0.17in; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 0.17in; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>In
order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of
which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there
must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you
cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your
decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the
potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision
is final.</i></span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 0.17in; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 0.17in; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>A
being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty."
It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential
to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being
that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who
knows everything cannot exist.</i></span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 0.17in; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 0.17in; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Therefore,
the Christian God does not exist.</i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">As
I listened to Barker make his point, it reminded me a little of the
<a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2018/02/because-there-cannot-be-married.html">Omnipotence
Paradox</a> people sometimes use to argue that God cannot exist. In
that case, critics ask, </span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>“Can
God make a rock so big that He can't lift it?”</i></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
The answer is either yes or no but, either way, it would mean there
is something God cannot do so, therefore, an omnipotent God cannot
exist. Barker's argument is very much along the same lines and has
been described before as the </span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Omniscience
Paradox</i></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">.
At the end of the day, it's simply another gimmick of logic.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I
believe the flaw in Barker's argument lies in his definition of free
will. His definition just sounds unusual. For example, Barker adds
the qualifier, “</span></span><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">This
means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of
uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the
future.</span></i></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">”
Since when is uncertainty a condition of free will? When I
googled a definition, I found that free will commonly means, </span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>“the
power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the
ability to act at one's own discretion.”</i></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>
</i></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">That
certainly describes God since He is not bound by either fate or
necessity. I found no mainstream definition that included any
discussion of indecision, uncertainty, or knowing the future. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKv8N0iCBKhVgRATUAPUuobjBwLtNmQqtsC7qHIKfSZyatLb_F5qK39ceCtdw3xndrS1QtdrUwTXRgLOKsW2RaDPOjM3J9IcZbDDesEErUhyphenhyphenECrzW0GnJ-qZQTuuqwwZQY1Iot0gXUC3E/s1600/Free+will+capture.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="171" data-original-width="647" height="168" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKv8N0iCBKhVgRATUAPUuobjBwLtNmQqtsC7qHIKfSZyatLb_F5qK39ceCtdw3xndrS1QtdrUwTXRgLOKsW2RaDPOjM3J9IcZbDDesEErUhyphenhyphenECrzW0GnJ-qZQTuuqwwZQY1Iot0gXUC3E/s640/Free+will+capture.PNG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">If
you think about it, it's rather ridiculous to argue that free will
must mean making a decision without knowing anything about the
outcome. Barker is essentially saying that since God knows the
future, He cannot exist. What? You can see how Barker's argument is
completely </span></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>non
sequitur</i></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">.
The Bible </span></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">attests
that God knows the future. Let me rephrase that: what we call the
“future” is simply the coming to pass of the things He has
already purposed. It's not a </span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>prediction</i></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
as though God's some kind of psychic; He writes the future and then
brings to pass what He has already decreed. He had the ability to
make things any way He wanted and He made them this way. According
to Barker, that's proof He doesn't exists. </span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>//RKBentley
shakes his head//</i></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
</span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Free
will is a notoriously thorny subject. One might even ask if humans
have free will. We may have choices but we have little say in the
consequences. I could choose not to eat, for example, but I then I
couldn't choose not to be hungry. I could choose not to breath, but
then I couldn't choose to keep living. Sometimes it seems life is
like a game of chess we are playing against a better opponent. We
might think we are deciding which pieces to move but our decisions
are only unavoidable responses to the better moves the other player
is making. The game we think we're playing is really the game he is
playing and we continuously have fewer and fewer choices until,
finally, we have no choices. Checkmate!</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">As
we live day to day, it may seem at any moment like we are free to
choose from a near infinite number possibilities, but the
consequences of each decision continuously restricts the number of
our future options. I could decide to walk to work instead of
driving. However, walking takes longer so the decision to walk
affects what time I decide to get up in the morning or whether I
decide to get to work on time. Do you see what I mean? My future
choices are the victims of the consequences of my present choices.
</span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
the theological realm, especially, Christians have often debated if
we have free will. If God is sovereign, then perhaps I cannot choose
to believe or deny Him. Perhaps everything I do is as He has
commanded. This debate has raged for centuries. But Barker fails to
see how this is a problem for his argument. He is hoisted upon his
own petard, if you will, because if humans do not have free will, how
is that an argument for their non-existence? Let's reduce this to the absurd: do rocks have free will? Do rocks exists? </span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">It's rather obvious that free will is not a condition of existence yet that is what Barker argues!</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">There
is much more that could be said on this subject but why bother? Just
the few paragraphs above show that Barker's argument is a tangle of
logical fallacies. If I say I will do something, and then I do it,
it may not be proof I have free will but, at the very least, it's
evidence that I exist. God has declared the end from the beginning.
He spoke to the prophets centuries in advance of things that would
come to pass <i><b>and they came to pass!</b></i> It's laughable to
say that's evidence He doesn't exist. If anything, that is <i><b>proof</b></i>
of His existence!</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: x-small;"><i>Related
articles:</i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: x-small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2018/02/because-there-cannot-be-married.html"><i>Because
there cannot be a married bachelor, there is no God. Um... what?</i></a></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: x-small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2011/03/thus-saith-lord.html"><i>Thus
Saith the Lord</i></a></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: x-small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-monopoly-on-words.html"><i>A
Monopoly on Words?</i></a></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"></span></span><br />
RKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-69294559153759156632018-10-29T10:04:00.004-04:002018-10-29T10:04:50.894-04:00The subtle lie of definition<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Let's
pretend, for a moment, that we have no ideas how mountains were
formed so I put on my thinking cap and begin making observations. On
beaches, I notice how the waves sometimes make ripples in the sand.
In the desert, I notice how sand dunes are formed by wind. These
observations lead me to hypothesize that mountain formation is the
cumulative effect of millions of years of wind and water moving dirt
around. Sounds plausible, right?</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Working
on this theory, I look around to find examples of mountains being
made taller by the wind and rain – but I can't find any. All I
find, instead, are mountains being worn by erosion caused by wind and
rain. In other words, they're becoming shorter, not taller. Not
willing to abandon my theory, I define “mountain forming” to mean
“any change in the elevation of a point of land.” Now, even
examples of erosion can be used to support my theory. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Instances
of erosion may fit my definition but they do nothing to support my
claim that these processes can form mountains if they just continue
long enough. Ideally, I should abandon my theory. At the very
least, I should change my definition to include, “a <i><b>rise</b></i>
in the elevation of land....” But I do neither. Instead, I double
down on my definition and begin arguing that even a lowering of land
elevation is mountain formation because it creates valleys! </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Clever,
huh? Employing such an ambiguous definition actually thwarts
criticism of my theory. It may make my theory somewhat unassailable,
but it doesn't make my theory true. Vague definitions like this
probably hinder science more than help it. Using this definition, I
could continue citing new instances of erosion, call them examples of
“mountain formation,” and never once find an example of a
mountain truly forming!</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So
where am I going with this? I've often written about the word games
evolutionists play. They constantly want to define terms in their
favor. And it's not just scientific terms, they also want to
redefine words like “faith.” The word they equivocate over the
most is <i>evolution</i>. </span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"></span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmNZcP9OjexLnN3LAYdMr-gNbH9QBcKk7WCS7bfHBOVAn21cG_mgigDauWZbsjKi9HDrobmP3U-9Nksfjy4Jev9cd3Pj4p7t2q8nNBHbP9OY-7Bshl8rK0W9djmimHhSt7tbN6i9O09aI/s1600/Evolution+definition.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="153" data-original-width="530" height="115" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmNZcP9OjexLnN3LAYdMr-gNbH9QBcKk7WCS7bfHBOVAn21cG_mgigDauWZbsjKi9HDrobmP3U-9Nksfjy4Jev9cd3Pj4p7t2q8nNBHbP9OY-7Bshl8rK0W9djmimHhSt7tbN6i9O09aI/s400/Evolution+definition.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
<a href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/evolution">Oxford
Dictionary</a> defines evolution as, </span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: #3333ff;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">“the
process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to
have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history
of the earth. ”</span></i></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
When we talk about “evolution,” most people think of things like
fish becoming frogs, dinosaurs becoming birds, and apes becoming men.
Am I right? Yet, when we look around, we never seen examples of
things like this happening. Oh sure, we see animal populations
</span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>change</i></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">,
but they don't change into other kinds of animals. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Enter
the ambiguous definition.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html">Talk
Origins</a>, a rabidly pro-evolution website, prefers this
definition:</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #3333ff;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">[E]volution
can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles
within a gene pool from one generation to the next.</span> </i></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Wow,
that sounds fancy. This is THE definition used by most, militant
evolutionists. Notice, though, that it doesn't do anything to
qualify the kind of change. There's no condition that the change has
to add any new characteristics to the population, for example. If a
population of gray and black mice were to go from 50% gray to 45%
gray over successive generations, then they've evolved <i>according
to this definition</i>. Yet it doesn't explain how something like a
mouse could turn into something like a bat over “millions of
years.” </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">For
evolution to be possible, biological populations have to acquire new
characteristics. To turn a dinosaur into a bird, you would have to
add feathers. To turn a reptile into a mammal, you would have to add
hair. The supposed first common ancestor didn't have feathers or
hair. Neither did it have skin or scales or bones or blood or organs
of any sort. How many new traits would you have to add to make turn
molecule into a man? So just to say a population has “changed”
doesn't mean the population is on its way to becoming something else
unless the change adds something. Removing the gray mice from a
population, for example, can't add new colors to the population.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
definition of evolution most favored and championed by evolutionists,
the one cited above, is very much like my ridiculous definition of
mountain formation. Any change in a population is called evolution,
even though it doesn't add anything new to the population. Indeed,
no new traits ever need to be found and evolution could still be said
to be happening. In fact, I believe that's precisely why zealous
evolutionists prefer it. Consider this except from the Talk Origins
article I cited:</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #3333ff;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Unfortunately
the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific
community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science
Dictionary we find the following definition:</i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<blockquote style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>"evolution:
The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and
animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms,
which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million
years."</i></span></span></span></blockquote>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #3333ff;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">This
is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this
definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it
specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should
not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems
to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself.
</span></i><i><b>Using this definition it is possible to debate
whether evolution is still occurring</b></i><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">....”</span></i>
</span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I
have to shake my head. They're right, it's hard to debate whether
evolution is occurring if they are allowed to call any kind of
change, “evolution.” Just like no one could question my theory
of mountain formation as long as<i> </i><span style="font-style: normal;">I'm
able to include mountains being eroded as examples of mountain
forming. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">This
is why evolutionists spend so much time haggling over terms. They
want to bolster their arguments by defining words in their favor. It
may be clever but it's still a gimmick. It's subtle. It's lying by
definition.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Related
articles</i></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2016/12/kinds-versus-species.html">“<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Kinds”
versus “species”</i></span></span></span></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-monopoly-on-words.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>A
Monopoly on Words</i></span></a></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2016/03/why-must-faith-mean-blind-faith.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Why
must “faith” mean “blind faith”?</i></span></a></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2015/05/humptydumpty-took-book-and-looked-at-it.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Evo
Speak</i></span></a></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2017/12/breaking-news-charles-darwin-was.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Breaking
News: Charles Darwin was an evolutionist!</i></span></a></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2012/08/evidence-for-creationism.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Evidence
for “Creationism”</i></span></a></span></span></div>
<br />RKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-21532082101569294592018-10-23T08:27:00.001-04:002018-10-23T08:27:24.179-04:00Is eternal punishment unfair?<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://kreisson.com.au/unfair-contract-terms-construction-industry/"><img border="0" data-original-height="468" data-original-width="935" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEtVRnHB_voo08XbqA-pmZfbrrJPK4c_5pW8bhWZB3qyKwli5fJlCL8PQBJEP294QIbyweL6r5gesJwaBIH68RUG4yazTPSqV_3mVKJAP9iYsKZzrvL-b8Uof_ynEX2UxB4Y2ciUTjXK0/s640/unfair.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">I'm in many
apologetic groups on FaceBook. In one such group, a member made the
following statement:</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><i>I've
never understood the claim that a sin, no matter how small (say, a
failure of cognition) against an infinite God, requires infinite
punishment. I understand that many Christians also find that claim
to be fatuous, and inevitably adjust their theology to one of
universalism, annihilation or a finite punishment.</i></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">I've heard
similar points made many times so rather than replying on FaceBook, I
thought I'd make my reply into a post here. I have several points I
can make.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><i><b>So
what if it were unfair?</b></i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">I've always
found it curious how some people have this expectation that the
universe must be fair. A cat will kill a mouse. Is it “fair”
that the mouse really has no defense against the cat except to hide
from it? Where do people – especially atheists – believe cosmic
justice would come from? The universe doesn't care what happens.
“Fairness” can only exist if there is a real God who administers
justice. In the absence of divine justice there in nothing but
cruel, indifferent reality.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">But
assuming that God is real, why must He be limited to our sense of
justice. I might think it's unfair to pay a $35 fine for failing to
put 25¢ in the parking meter. Apparently, the city of Cincinnati
doesn't think that's unfair since that was the amount I had to pay
them for my last parking ticket. The laws are made by the person (or
people) in authority and they also set the penalties for the people
who break the laws. The guilty might feel his punishment is too
great for his crime. That doesn't matter.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Now, I'll
explain in a moment why God's law is fair. But even if it were to
seem unfair by every measure of our sensibilities, what are we
supposed to do? Should I conclude that God can't be real because
He's not fair? You can see how that doesn't follow. Perhaps you
could argue that He isn't worthy of our worship because He is unfair.
That is foolhardy because your indignation toward the law doesn't
excuse you from being bound by the law. The mouse can protest all it
wants but, in the end, the cat will still eat the mouse. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">It is far,
far better to simply acknowledge the reality of the situation. There
is a God who judges sin. Your protests, your finite understanding of
justice, and all your moral outrage will not be a defense.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><i><b>We're
all guilty</b></i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">The
question asked on Facebook was why only one little sin will send
someone to hell. It's rather optimistic to believe there is anyone
who has committed only a single sin. Is it wrong to lie? Most
people will say yes. OK, if it's wrong to lie then how many lies
have you ever told? It's just you and the computer right now so at
least be honest with yourself for a moment. How many lies have you
told today? This week? This month? This year? Let's face it –
we're all habitual liars.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Thou shalt
not bear false witness is just one of the Commandments (Exodus
20:16). How about the other Commandments? Have you always put God
first? Have you ever taken His name in vain? Have you always kept
the Sabbath holy? Have you always obeyed your parents? Have you
ever stolen anything? Have you ever coveted anything? You can see
where I'm going with this. It's not like there's someone out there
who has committed just one sin; everyone of us broken every
Commandment many, many times. We're all guilty. If we want to talk
about the fairness of going to hell over a single sin, then perhaps
we should ask what is the just punishment for someone who is a
habitual, unrepentant sinner? </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><i><b>God
is more than fair</b></i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">In Jeremiah
18:1-6, we read this haunting account:</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,</span></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Arise, and go down to
the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.</span></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Then I went down to
the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.</span></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">And the vessel that he
made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it
again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.</span></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Then the word of the
LORD came to me, saying,</span></span> <span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">O
house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD.
Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand,
O house of Israel.</span></span> </i></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">The point
of the story is simple. The potter shapes the clay however he sees
fit. If he doesn't like how the clay is formed, it is the right of
the potter to destroy it and start over. We are God's creation and,
so, are subject to His will.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">God created
a perfect universe where there was no death or suffering or toil. He
gave mankind dominion over the entire earth and everything in it was
for our benefit. Yet we rebelled. God had no obligation to us. He
did not have to forgive Adam nor does He have to provide salvation to
any of us. If He destroyed all of creation at the very moment Adam
sinned, that would have been fair. But that's not what He decided to
do.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">If God
decided He should destroy us at the very moment we sin, that would be
fair. But that isn't what He decides to do.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">God could
have required us to earn our salvation. If He put some tremendous
burden on us, where we had to do 1,000 good deeds to atone for each
sin we commit, that would be fair. But that's not what He decided to
do.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">What God
did do is leave His heavenly glory to put on a body of flesh, He came
to earth in the most humble of circumstances, He lived a sinless
life, He was scorned and shamed, and finally He was tortured and put
to death on the Cross to pay the penalty that we owed for our sins.
After this, Christ rose from the dead and currently sits at the right
hand of the Father making intercession for us. Finally, the Bible
tells us that God will restore the creation that was marred by our
sin and we will live forever with Him in a home He prepared for us.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">What
exactly do these critics think is fair? Do they believe they can
live their life however they want, they can indulge their flesh, they
can spurn God, they can mock the death of His Son – but if God
punishes them for it, then He's being unfair? Yes, I think that's
exactly what they want to believe.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Given all
these things, the original question seems rather absurd. There's no
reason unbelievers should expect fairness. We haven't committed just
one sin – we are each one habitual sinners who do things every day
which, by anyone's standard, we know are wrong. We've been told the
consequences of our sin but the lost continue to rebel against God.
Yet even then, and even though He is under no obligation, God still
makes eternal reward available to those who will simply confess their
sins and accept the free gift of Christ. Why do people still claim
that God isn't being fair?!</span></div>
<br />RKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-22479803842174954422018-09-26T12:34:00.002-04:002018-09-26T12:34:27.750-04:00Who's really indoctrinating whom about evolution?<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">There's
a term used often on the internet called Poe's Law. It basically
means that it's impossible to distinguish extremists' comments from
parodies of extremists' comments. Let me give you an example. Phil
Plait is a self-described “science evangelizer” and blogger for
Slate.com. A while back, he wrote an article titled, <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/09/creationism_in_school_science_quiz_gets_it_totally_wrong.html">Give
Me An “F!” Creationists Fail a Fourth Grade Science Test</a>,
where he lamented elementary students being taught creationism. In
the article he said:</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">My
complaint is one of simple reality. </span></span></span></span></span><em><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Young-Earth
creationism is wrong, and it’s </span></span></span></span></em><strong><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>certainly
</b></span></span></span></strong><em><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">not
science. </span></span></span></span></em><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">For
that reason alone, ideally it shouldn’t be taught as truth
anywhere, let alone a science class.... In fact, </span></span></span></span></span><em><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">all
</span></span></span></span></em><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">of
science shows creationism is wrong, because creationism goes against
pretty much every founding principle of and every basic fact
uncovered by science. If creationism were true, then essentially no
modern invention would work. Since </span></span></span></span></span><em><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">you’re
reading this on a computer</span></span></span></span></em><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
</span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">that
right there is proof enough</span></span></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
</span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: #281b21;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">[Italics
and bold in original]</span></span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Really,
Mr. Plait? “<i><b>All</b></i> of science shows creationism is
wrong”? “No modern invention would work” if creation were
true? Computers are proof that evolution is correct? His comments
are hilarious <i>and he means them</i>! No exaggeration I could make
about his comments could be any more extreme than what Plait is
actually saying. It's a perfect example of Poe's Law.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I
shouldn't have to rebut any of these outrageous claims because they
are absurd on their face. It makes no sense to say that things like
computers or satellites or rockets wouldn't work if God created the
universe. I'm fairly certain that Plait is unaware that <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Babbage">Charles
Babbage</a>, the man credited with inventing modern computing, was a
creationist. However, the point of my blog, today, isn't to detail
the contributions creationists have made to science. Rather, it's
something else that Plait said that piqued my interest. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">What
really makes my heart sink is the reality that </span></span></span></span><em><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">this
is actually being taught to young children. </span></span></span></span></em><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Kids
are natural scientists; they want to see and explore and categorize
and ask “why?” until they understand everything. And we, as
adults, as caretakers, have a solemn responsibility to nurture that
impulse and to answer them in as honest a way as possible,
encouraging them to seek more answers—and more
questions—themselves. That’s how we learn. ¶But this? This
isn’t learning. It’s </span></span></span></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>indoctrination</b></span></span></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">[bold added]</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQkZYhWB9AZ140jsZ1M-RumaCxifKzaEx-lb7wXrXigNXz17nBsuY0OIf0weMbksWieqYTgwPJP9YQTWixmuJ3VDGhuXwPLq7s-rvP_u20ACsQRmzIt-qdlAOel3vDhGDl7xc1t_MSi90/s1600/Indoctrinate+capture.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="222" data-original-width="615" height="230" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQkZYhWB9AZ140jsZ1M-RumaCxifKzaEx-lb7wXrXigNXz17nBsuY0OIf0weMbksWieqYTgwPJP9YQTWixmuJ3VDGhuXwPLq7s-rvP_u20ACsQRmzIt-qdlAOel3vDhGDl7xc1t_MSi90/s640/Indoctrinate+capture.PNG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Indoctrination
is a strong word to use. The ordinary definition of “indoctrinate”
is to teach someone to accept a set of beliefs uncritically. Yet
there is a pejorative connotation to the word. I taught my children
to speak English; does that mean I <i>indoctrinated</i> them to speak
English? Is it indoctrination to teach our kids right and wrong? To
be nice? To pick up their things, to get good grades, and to work
hard? Teaching our children our values isn't indoctrination – it's
called <i>raising them</i>. We also tend to raise our children to
share our religious beliefs. I'm sure the parents who send their
kids to the private school Plait is ridiculing, are Christians who
believe in creation. That wanted to send their kids to a Christian
school that reinforces the same values the kids learn at home. To
accuse the parents of “indoctrinating” their kids is a type of <i>ad
hominem</i>. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">What
I find most curious about militant evolutionists is how angry they
become whenever someone doesn't believe in evolution. In the
introduction to his article, immediately following the photo of the
4<sup>th</sup> grade quiz, Plait assumes the reader would be,
<span style="color: #ff3333;"><i>“</i></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">screaming
in rage and/or pounding your head against the desk.</span></i></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><i>”</i></span>
Why? Because some people actually believe in creation and neither
Plait nor his cohorts can stand it. He says later, <span style="color: #ff3333;">“</span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">I
am deeply saddened that there are places teaching this to children.</span></span></span><span style="color: #ff3333;">”
</span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Worshipers
of <a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2017/04/stop-spouting-facts-science-is-settled.html">scientism</a>
virtually froth at the mouth over the simple fact that people exist
who doubt evolution. They obsess over it. They stay up at night
worrying about it. They wring their hands and plot about ways to
stamp out </span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>science
deniers</i></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">.
Yet they can't see their hypocrisy through their blinding contempt.
</span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">They</span></i></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
are the ones interested in indoctrination! Do you think I'm
exaggerating? Let's look at some facts.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>THEY
LIE</b></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Think
about the things Plait said in this article:</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<ul>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">all
of science contradicts creationism.</span> </span></span>
</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">no
modern invention would work if creation were true.</span></span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Creationism
goes against every founding principle and every basic fact of
science. </span></span>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">If
he made just one statement like this, I might dismiss it as
hyperbole. To repeat it over and over shows he's being very
deliberate. It's rather ordinary for evolutionists to lie to bolster
their theory. I've even written a series about <a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2016/09/ten-lies-evolutionists-tell-part-1.html">10
lies evolutionists tell</a> but there are many more than 10. I've
been thinking of doing a sequel, adding another 10. When people
tells lies to advance an agenda, that's the very definition of
propaganda.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>THEY
SQUELCH</b></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Several
years ago, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District">Cobb
County Board of Education</a> placed a sticker in school science
books that said, </span></span><span style="color: #3333ff;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>“</i></span></span></span><span style="color: #3333ff;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">This
textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a
fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be
approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically
considered.</span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: #3333ff;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>”</i></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
Note that the stickers didn't mention creation or even religion.
Instead, they said that evolution should be examined carefully,
critically, and with an open mind. Critical thinking should be a
staple in educating our kids. <a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2016/04/evolutionists-treat-science-like.html">Questioning
everything is supposed to be a fundamental principle of science</a> –
except when it comes to evolution. </span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>No
one</i></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"> is
allowed to question evolution! In the matter of Cobb County, the
case ended up in court where a judge ordered the stickers be removed.
Such is always the case when any criticism of evolution is suggested
in the public classroom. Any policy that might treat evolution as
anything less than an absolute fact is challenged in court. Any
teacher who seems sympathetic to creation or intelligent design risks
losing his job. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Groups
have been organized, like the National Center for Science Education,
whose sole mission is to insure that the teaching of evolution is not
diminished in any way. They recently took up arms against the School
Superintendent in Arizona who was rewriting science standards for the
state. On their website, <a href="https://ncse.com/blog/2018/08/evolution-arizona-staying-vigilant-0018789">NCSE</a>
bragged, </span></span><span style="color: #3333ff;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>“</i></span></span></span><span style="color: #3333ff;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">NCSE,
of course, is constantly on guard for threats to the integrity of
science education, including in</span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: #3333ff;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>
Arizona.”</i></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
By “science education” they mean “teaching evolution.” What
was their complaint? One example from the article says, </span></span><span style="color: #3333ff;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>“</i></span></span></span><span style="color: #3333ff;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">First,
although evolution is still listed in the edited standards as a core
concept, the description of the concept was changed for the worse.
The writing committee explained it by saying, correctly, “The unity
and diversity of organisms, living and extinct, is the result of
evolution.” This was then edited to say, ‘The theory of evolution
seeks to make clear the unity of living and extinct organisms.” The
difference, of course, is that the writing committee’s version
clearly says that evolution is correct, while the edited version is
studiously agnostic.”</span></i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">It
seems the edited version didn't seem to state evolution was a fact.
Oh the horror! I'm not sure if evolution is the only scientific
theory with its own political lobby but I'm certain it is the only
scientific theory that is protected by law. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>THEY
PROSELYTIZE</b></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Education
is supposed to be about imparting knowledge. It's supposed to make
kids “critical thinkers.” We make sure kids understand the
material but teachers are not supposed to take sides. Right? I have
a degree in business. Part of my studies in college included
learning about different economic philosophies: capitalism,
socialism, communism, etc. Do you think it's possible to understand
an economic theory without endorsing it? Of course it is. I can
learn about – and understand – socialism while remaining a
capitalist. Likewise, a person could learn about and understand
evolution while still being a creationist. When it comes to teaching
evolution, though, it's not enough for these people to make sure
every student understands the theory. They won't stop until every
student utterly rejects creation and wholly embraces evolution.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Remember
in Plait's bio, he is described as a </span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>“science
evangelizer.”</i></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
What do you think he means by that? I think it's obvious. And he's
not alone in his zeal. In a NY Times interview, Bill Nye was asked,
“</span></span><strong><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">do
you imagine a child in a creationist-friendly household managing to
get his hands on the book [you've written about evolution] and
stealing away with it?</span></i></span></span></span></strong><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">”
Nye's answer is very telling:</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="color: #3333ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">A
man can dream! It would be great if the book is that influential. My
biggest concern about creationist kids is that they’re compelled to
suppress their common sense, to suppress their critical thinking
skills at a time in human history when we need them more than ever.
By the time you’re 18, you’ve made up your mind. It’s going to
be really hard for you, as they say in the Mormon tradition, to “lose
your testimony.” But if you’re 7 or 8, we got a shot.</span></i></span></span><span style="font-size: small;">
</span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
“<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>We
got a shot”?</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> We should be
concerned that someone with such poor grammar wants to teach our kids
but I'm more alarmed by his obvious intentions – reach the kids
young enough, and we can convince them evolution is true.</span> </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">I
came across an article in <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-best-way-to-get-children-to-understand-evolution-is-to-teach-genetics-first-finds-study-77981">The
Conversation</a> that says, </span></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>“The
best way to get children to understand evolution is to teach genetics
first.”</i></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">
That paper was a little more candid than many about the motive to
teaching evolution. In the following except, pay attention to the
parts I've highlighted in bold:</span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #3333ff;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">An
understanding of evolution and acceptance of the idea of evolution
are two different things. Acceptance is the belief that the
scientific view of evolution is the correct version: you can
understand evolution but not accept it and you can accept it but not
understand it.</span> <b>We found that students typically accepted
evolution to a greater degree after taking the genetics class</b><span style="font-weight: normal;">.....</span></i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #3333ff;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">We
also set up a series of focus groups to find out why the
understanding and acceptance of evolution are not more strongly
coupled. Evidence from these suggests that what is more important for
evolution acceptance is not what is taught, but</span></span> who
provides the endorsement. <b>For some students, being told that key
authority figures such as parents or teachers approve of scientific
evidence for evolution made a big difference to their ability to
accept it</b>..... </i></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #3333ff;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Whatever
the underlying cause, the data suggest a really simple, minimally
disruptive and cost-free modification to teaching practice: teach
genetics first. This will at least increase evolution understanding,
if not acceptance. As with many emotive subjects, </span></i></span><span style="color: #3333ff;"><i><b>it
takes more than teaching the facts to shift hearts as well as minds</b></i></span><span style="color: #3333ff;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">.</span></i></span><span style="color: #383838;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So
there you have it. They are not coy about their intentions – they
want to indoctrinate our kids. They are just angry that parents and
religious liberty keeps getting in their way!</span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Related
articles</i></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2014/12/evolution-religion-of-death.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Evolution:
A Religion of Death</i></span></a></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2016/04/bill-nye-thinks-kids-need-to-be-better.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Bill
Nye thinks kids need to be better educated about evolution</i></span></a></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2017/04/stop-spouting-facts-science-is-settled.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Stop
spouting facts... the science is settled!</i></span></a></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2016/04/evolutionists-treat-science-like.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Evolutionists
treat science like a religion</i></span></a></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2017/05/why-even-teach-evolution.html">Why
even teach evolution?</a></i></span></span></span></div>
RKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-34708597322623729342018-09-14T13:16:00.004-04:002018-09-14T13:16:44.445-04:00Another “best” argument from atheists<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">As
a Christian apologist, if I may presume to be one, I would feel slack
in my duty to God if I only answered the easiest arguments skeptics
make rather than the most difficult ones. Over the years, I've
responded to many “best arguments for atheism” articles I've
found on the web. It's been my experience, though, that none of them
are very good. Indeed, many can't even stand against their own
criticism. For example, Carl Sagan is quoted as saying,
<i>“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
Of course, Sagan didn't present a shred of evidence to support this
claim! What a riot. </span><i>//RKBentley chuckles//</i></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">Anyway,
I recently came across still another article titled, <a href="https://owlcation.com/humanities/Top-Atheists-Their-Best-Arguments">3
Famous Atheists & Their Best Arguments</a>. As I clicked on the
link, I went through my usual cycle of emotions: curiosity,
hopefulness, disappointment, and finally, determination to at least
find something in the article worth blogging about.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Most
of the arguments in the article have been addressed on my blog
already. Perhaps those really are the best arguments for atheism
because I've heard them repeated so many times. In fact, it would
probably be a good idea to write more about them because they are
certainly arguments Christians will hear often. Regardless, there
was one point raised in the article that I don't believe I have
written about. It's certainly not an original argument, but it's
been raised often enough that I'm rather embarrassed that I haven't
addressed it before now. So let me remedy that today.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEia89J45-Os-kQ73cCbdtSUkvWjlh2EH55TBhAGrgMPqJz9kB7Tr_dm2PCAdBs6WFuqkmAMOzFxEGpRtlVxtlowkteUnLunejhLz5FUxkLAIx5ZBHr4SmODvBp0s8Vfb3-kx5r4CLxAdfc/s1600/Dawkins.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="512" data-original-width="1024" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEia89J45-Os-kQ73cCbdtSUkvWjlh2EH55TBhAGrgMPqJz9kB7Tr_dm2PCAdBs6WFuqkmAMOzFxEGpRtlVxtlowkteUnLunejhLz5FUxkLAIx5ZBHr4SmODvBp0s8Vfb3-kx5r4CLxAdfc/s640/Dawkins.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<i style="color: #ff3333; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><b>Religion
is Desperation</b></i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>I've
also noticed this painful truth about religion. It's made up of
people who are intensely afraid of reality, and of the truth of the
human condition. Religion comes from our hatred for our loathsome
existence and our deep desire to deny the actuality of death and
future loss. However, if we can be united in our dissociation from
real life, we can be happy. We can call this dissociation "faith"
and together we can be free from the horror of existence.</i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">The
article attributes this argument to Richard Dawkins but it well
predates Dawkins. The earliest and most famous (infamous) person who
raised this point is perhaps Karl Marx who said, </span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><i>“Religion
is the opium of the people.”</i></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people">Wiki</a>
actually cites the full quote as saying, </span><span style="color: #3333ff;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><i>“</i></span></span><span style="color: #3333ff;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Religion
is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless
world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the
people.</span></i></span></span><span style="color: #3333ff;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><i>”</i></span></span><span style="color: #3333ff;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;">
</span></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;">
</span></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;">The
implication is, life is really hard and people use religion like a
drug to escape from reality. There is such a tangle of problems with
this argument that it's difficult to find the best order to unravel
them. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;">IT'S
AN APPEAL TO MOTIVE</span></span></b></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;">I
believe I should dive right in and start with the obvious: this is a
text book example of the fallacy, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive">appeal
to motive</a>. Think about it. Suppose I really do believe in
Christ only because I'm afraid to die. How would that make
Christianity not real? It would be like a person, dying from cancer,
rejoicing when the doctor says, “I have good news. Here's a cure!”
The sick person certainly has a reason to </span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><i>want</i></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;">
to believe the doctor but his eagerness (or even his skepticism if
he doubted) has no bearing on whether he is really sick or whether
the doctor really has a cure. To question the motive of believers,
by saying they believe in God only because they are afraid of the
world, does nothing – NOT ONE THING – to establish atheism as
being correct or theism as being wrong. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">If
we looked at the opposite side of the coin, I could make this same
argument against atheists – that God is real and atheists deny
there's a God so they can live their lives however they want and
pretend there is no God who will judge them after they die. I could
say that Hell is real and the thought of eternal torment scares
atheists so much that they try to convince themselves it isn't real.
I could talk about the amazing historical evidence for the Bible,
about the evidence for the Flood, about the evidence against
evolution but atheists won't accept any of it because to acknowledge
any point means they would have to accept the possibility of a God
and that's not an option for them. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">If
Dawkins truly thinks God isn't real because Christians want Him to be
real (I still can't quite figure out what point Dawkins is trying to
make), then he needs to examine his own motives. Romans 1:18-20
says, </span></span><span style="color: #3333ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>“</i></span></span><span style="color: #3333ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">For
the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;</span></i></span></span><span style="color: #3333ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>
</i></span></span><span style="color: #3333ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Because
that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath
shewed it unto them.</span></i></span></span><span style="color: #3333ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>
</i></span></span><span style="color: #3333ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">For
the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:”</span></i></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">
I believe the evidence for God is overwhelming. Everything I know
about reality affirms over and over that there is a God behind it
all. The Bible says we intuitively know there is a God, I shouldn't
even have to present any evidence of Him. So when atheists deny what
should be obvious, I </span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i>do</i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">
question their motives. Are you ready for a dose of irony? Many
atheists only claim to be atheists because they know God is real!</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><b><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">IT'S
A HASTY GENERALIZATION</span></span></b></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">Besides
its faulty </span></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>appeal
to motive</i></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">
foundation, Dawkins deftly piles onto his argument still another
fallacy of logic, the </span></span></span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization#Hasty_generalization"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>hasty
generalization</i></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">.
It's true there may be people out there who fear death so much that
they would leap at any promise of eternal life – </span></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>even
an empty promise.</i></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">
Yet even if that's true, it's no basis for Dawkin to suggests this
applies to all Christians or even most Christians. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">The
majority of Christians believe in God and the Bible for the same
reasons people believe anything, namely, they are convinced that
these things are true. We become convinced through many different
lines reason: logic, evidence, and our experiences. It's factually
wrong for Dawkins to suggest the primary factor why Christians choose
to believe is fear.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">IT'S
AD HOMINEM</span></span></span></b></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">It's
hilarious when an atheist acts “holier-than-thou,” but in his
typical, condescending fashion, Dawkins suggests that atheists are
enlightened thinkers who fully grasp reality while theists are
quivering cowards who couldn't leave their house without an assurance
that someone “up there” is going to keep them safe. I'm not sure
exactly why he does this. It could be simple ridicule borne out of
his habitual contempt for theism. It could be a tactic aimed at
shaming people who claim to believe. Whatever the reason, it's
rather shameful.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">No
one wants to look like a coward. No one wants to be thought of as a
person who can't face reality. Yet that's what Dawkins claims
Christians are. It may be possible to embarrass a person to the
point he is afraid to admit what he truly believes to be true but
it's just a gimmick. It does nothing to prove what the person
believes isn't true. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><b><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">IT
CONTRADICTS ITSELF</span></span></b></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">If
people invent religion to quell their fears of reality, why invent a
religion with hell? It doesn't make any sense. In fact, it's beyond
senseless for someone who already fears death to create a religion
where a worse punishment might await him after death! If fear were
truly the motivating factor for people to believe in God, some form
of universalism, the belief that all people can live happily ever
after, would be the most popular religion.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">In
conclusion, let me remind you of the title of the article that raised
this point: </span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i>3 Famous Atheists &
Their Best Arguments</i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">.
I'll repeat that, </span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>“Their best
arguments.”</b></i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">
Really? Saying, </span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i>“You only believe
in God because you're afraid of reality,”</i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">
is one of the best arguments for atheism? I'm sorry but it's not one
of the best. It's not even a good argument. It does nothing to
support atheism and the author should be embarrassed that he even
included it in his article.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: x-small;"><i>Further
reading</i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: x-small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-best-argument-atheists-have-is-that.html"><i>The
best argument atheists have is that they have no argument</i></a></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: x-small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2016/01/why-is-atheism-default-belief_8.html"><i>Why
is atheism the default belief?</i></a></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: x-small;"><a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2012/02/what-is-evidence-for-atheism.html"><i>What
is the evidence for atheism?</i></a></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"></span></span></span><br />
RKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-63308785054508725912018-09-06T07:30:00.002-04:002018-09-06T07:30:37.302-04:00How can someone eat an entire elephant?<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">There's an
old riddle that goes something like this: <i>Q: How do you eat an
entire elephant? A: One bite at a time!</i> There's a certain amount
of wisdom in that riddle. It's true that what seems like an
impossibly big task could be accomplished in small enough increments.
This is the principle that evolutionists apply when comparing
macroevolution and microevolution.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">I was
online the other day when an evolutionist made this comment: </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><i>Because
macroevolution is just microevolution repeated over long time
periods, it's often been said that if you accept microevolution, but
deny macroevolution, you are essentially saying that it's possible to
walk from Los Angeles to San Francisco but impossible to walk from
Los Angeles to New York.</i></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><i>So,
I'd like to hear your best explanation as to why it's impossible to
walk from Los Angeles to New York.</i></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">I didn't
respond online because, frankly, too many of those forums are overrun
with trolls. Instead, I thought I'd offer an explanation here. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">This is lie
#3 from my <a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2016/09/ten-lies-evolutionists-tell-part-2.html">Ten
Lies Evolutionists Tell</a> series. At first hearing, the above
argument sounds very persuasive. In fact, in the way it's worded
here, I really can't argue with it. Obviously, if a person can walk
a small distance, he could also walk a long distance if he has enough
time. The problem with this argument is that it doesn't fairly
represent what happens when animal populations “change.” There
are at least three reasons why this analogy fails to explain how
“microevolution” could make “macroevolution” possible over
time.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><b>THE
CHANGE MUST BE IN ONE DIRECTION</b></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Even the
most famous examples of “evolution” usually involve slight
variations back and forth around the mean. When Darwin observed the
finches in the Galapagos, he noted the differences in the sizes of
their beaks. In the 150 years since then, we've seen that beaks tend
to be larger during periods of drought and smaller during periods of
rain. In other words, after a century and a half of observation,
there has been no accumulation of small changes. There has only been
back and forth variations in response to back and forth changes in
the environment.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">For
evolution to be possible, the changes must continuously be in one
direction – like finch beaks only getting bigger. Back and forth
changes over time means there are no net changes – not even
microevolution. No matter how long he tries, a person cannot walk
from LA to NY if he only walks in a circle! </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><b>THE
CHANGE CANNOT HAVE A BOUNDARY</b></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">In another
famous example of “evolution,” the peppered moth, a population of
moths changed from mostly light, to mostly dark, to mostly light
again in response to changes in the environment. You can see
immediately that this is another example of back and forth variation
like I just discussed in my first point. However, there is something
else at work here. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Suppose the
change did occur in only one direction. In the case of the peppered
moths, for example, what if the population only continued becoming
dark? Eventually, the entire population would become 100% dark and
the change would stop. The change in the frequency of the dark
allele could not increase any more. If anything, it could only
decrease and the population would start becoming light again (see
point number one).</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Clearly a
person cannot walk from Honolulu to NY! </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><b>THE
CHANGE MUST BE ADDING SOMETHING</b></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">In order to
turn a reptile into a mammal, you would have to add hair. The
imagined first-living-thing didn't have hair. Neither did it have
scales or even skin. It didn't have bones or blood or organs of any
kind. For evolution to be possible, organisms would have to acquire
new traits. To turn a microbe into a man, it would require millions
of traits being continuously added generation after generation.
“Changes” in a population, that don't add new features to the
population, cannot allow a population to evolve.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">There are
species of fish that live in caves and are born without eyes. They
are obviously descended from seeing fish but, in a dark environment
where you can't see anything, having eyes is not an advantage. In
fact, swimming around in the dark means you could bump into the wall
and scratch your eyes which could lead to a deadly infection. In a
cave where there is no light, a mutation that causes a fish to be
born without eyes actually means the blind fish has an advantage over
the seeing fish. This is what is called a “beneficial mutation.”</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Beneficial
mutations are an observed phenomenon. They convey some benefit to
the host but it comes by way of <i><b>losing</b></i> something. For
evolution to happen, populations have to <i><b>acquire</b></i>
traits. You can't acquire traits by continuously losing traits –
it doesn't matter how long it continues! Observing a population of
fish being born without eyes does nothing to explain how eyes evolved
in the first place.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">You cannot
turn a molehill into a mountain by continuously removing dirt. You
can't grow a company by losing a little bit of money each year. You
can't walk from LA to NY by walking away from NY!</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCV44Y0lf-unGBZ5oNjz9-NYuu_tbZQelVPiGTe0Qwc0dZZiCn95LMAUumBLaGl4wyIiTlfb5RdYL5iq1oBTUJwu0N5EHVrC96SFSTfm6qUse2hSUhHNEaM9Wm34czozSMQ65yQYz2apc/s1600/Macroevolution+meme.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="427" data-original-width="502" height="544" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCV44Y0lf-unGBZ5oNjz9-NYuu_tbZQelVPiGTe0Qwc0dZZiCn95LMAUumBLaGl4wyIiTlfb5RdYL5iq1oBTUJwu0N5EHVrC96SFSTfm6qUse2hSUhHNEaM9Wm34czozSMQ65yQYz2apc/s640/Macroevolution+meme.PNG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><br /></span></div>
RKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-6493377121739110572018-08-24T08:53:00.004-04:002018-08-25T06:52:35.292-04:00It's God's world so it's God's rules!<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.crosswalk.com/faith/bible-study/10-facts-you-didn-t-know-about-the-10-commandments.html"><img border="0" data-original-height="628" data-original-width="1200" height="334" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijMBXi7b4q3HNPGJglrlmB5ve8P3zXfitk-wvaRXi_pkW1xpy8KUboWzMiNB4kQHbf4NURirRjnp-cr9dHH2MlEHKqvr4K3uG95VzfE8jUZ44ZcOwtRmDxWoexXE4QLFnYlSb6wMNIv3E/s640/10+commandments.jpg" width="640" /></a><span id="goog_966518773"></span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/"></a><span id="goog_966518774"></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">My wife and
I lead an adult community group at my church (community groups were
formerly called Sunday School classes). In our current series, we've
been going through the 10 Commandments. Now, I've studied
apologetics for many years now and talked a lot about creation and
evolution so perhaps I've studied Genesis more than the average
Christian but I've surprised even myself with the number of times
during this series that I referred to the creation to make a point. I
thought it would be interesting to share a few of the thoughts I've
had.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Before I
even start with the commandments, we need to examine the whole
premise of right and wrong. I've talked about this before but it's
sometimes difficult to articulate what makes something “wrong.”
Oh sure, many critics are quick to label something as wrong but if
you ask an atheist why a certain thing is objectively wrong (besides
his opinion), he usually responds with a lot of bluff and bluster.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">At its
root, something is “wrong” if it's not the way it ought to be.
There has to be an objective standard of what is “right” and
anything that does not conform to that standard is “wrong.” For
example, to say it's wrong to murder someone implies that people
ought not murder. Now, that sounds obvious but it's not necessarily
so easy. During WWII, Hitler and the Nazis didn't think it was wrong
to murder 6 million Jews. We might disagree but what makes our
opinion “right” and Hitler's “wrong”? There's has to be a
transcendent standard, one that is greater than the shifting opinions
of men, in order for right and wrong to truly exist.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Genesis
1:31 says, <span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">And
God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.</span></i></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
You see, when God created the world, He made things “the way they
ought to be.” Therefore, He is the One who judges if something is
not the way it ought to be. His commandments aren't simply 10
suggestions on how to avoid difficulties; they tell us what is right
and wrong. God alone is the final arbiter of morality. It's God's
world so it's God's rules! </span></span></span></span>
</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;">As we
go through the commandments, see how often they are a direct
reflection of His will at the creation.</span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;"><b>I.
I am the LORD thy God.... Thou shalt have no other gods before me.</b></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Genesis
1:1 says, </span></span></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">In
the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.</span></i></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
God alone is the Creator. The are no other gods. It's fitting
that, in the first commandment, God establishes that He is the only
one with the authority to command us. There should be no one else to
whom we turn to ask what is right and what is wrong. There is no one
else who can tell us how we ought to be or what we ought to do.</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;"><b>II.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of
any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath,
or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down
thyself to them, nor serve them.</b></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">In
Jeremiah 7, God rebukes Israel for their worship of Baalim. In v.
27-28, He ridicules the worship of idols. </span></span></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Saying
to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me
forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face:
but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us.
But where are thy gods that thou hast made thee? let them arise, if
they can save thee in the time of thy trouble: for according to the
number of thy cities are thy gods, O Judah.</span></i></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span></span>
</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">God
reminds His people that these graven idols were made by men and even
though the idols may have hands and feet, they still can do nothing.
Yet the people pray to them, saying to the wood, “You are my
father,” and to the stone, “You have made me.” Romans 1:25
talks about idolatrous people, </span></span></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Who
changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the
creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.</span></i></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span></span>
</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;"><b>III.
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.</b></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">In
Genesis 2:19-20, we read, </span></span></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">[W]hatsoever
Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And
Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to
every beast of the field.</span></i></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span></span>
</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;">Perhaps
Adam naming the animals is like letting a child name the family pet.
God gave Adam dominion over all the earth. To demonstrate to Adam
that he had authority over the animals, God allowed Adam to name the
animals in the Garden. The right to name something is a definitive
test that you have authority over that thing.</span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;">Of
course, we don't have authority over God. We must address Him in the
way He deserves to be addressed – with respect, with humility, and
with reverence.</span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #ff3333; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">IV.
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.</span></span> <span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">Six
days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work.... For in six days the
LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and
rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day,
and hallowed it.</span></span></b></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;">I find
it interesting that God actually referenced the creation account in
this commandment. When God made the universe, He also created the
Sabbath. Do you think, then, that God takes the Sabbath seriously? </span></span>
</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;">I also
think this passage quickly dispels long-age interpretations of the
original creation week. Certainly there is nothing in this passage
that would cause the original readers to believe the 6 days meant
anything other than 6 days. </span></span>
</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;"><b>V.
Honour thy father and thy mother</b></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Genesis
1:28 says, </span></span></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">“And
God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply,
and replenish the earth.”</span></i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;">When
God created the angels, He apparently made a host of them. Jesus
made it clear that angels do not marry (Matthew 22:30) which suggests
they do not reproduce. God could have created humans in the same
way. Instead, He created only two people and commanded them to
reproduce together and fill the earth. The parent/child relationship
was part of His divine plan. God created family.</span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;"><b>VI.
Thou shalt not kill.</b></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">It
would be ridiculously obvious to say that God is the Author of life.
But we seldom stop to consider how overtly this is attested in the
Bible. In Genesis 1:20-21, 24, we read the following: </span></span></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">“And
God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature
</span></i></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>that
hath life</b></i></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of
heaven.</span></i></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><i> </i></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">And
God created great whales, </span></i></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">and</span></i></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>
every living creature</b></i></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their
kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was
good.... Let the earth bring forth </span></i></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>the
living creature</b></i></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth
after his kind: and it was so.”</span></i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">When
God made man, Genesis 2:7 also described him as living: </span></span></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">“And
the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into
his nostrils the breath of life; </span></i></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>and
man became a living soul</b></i></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">.”</span></i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;">God
not only created the living animals, He created essentially what it
means to be alive. As the Creator of life, it is God's exclusive
right to say when and how it acceptable to take a life. Eating
animals is allowed. Executing criminals is allowed. Murder is never
allowed.</span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #ff3333; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">VII.
</span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">Thou
shalt not commit adultery.</span></span></b></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">When God
made man, we read that His plan was that man should not be alone.
Genesis 2:18, 21-24 reads, <span style="color: #6666ff;"><i>“</i></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">And
the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I
will make him an help meet for him.... And the LORD God caused a
deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his
ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the
LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto
the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my
flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall
cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.</span></i></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><i>”</i></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">When
Jesus was asked about marriage in Matthew 19:4-5, He referred them
back to the creation account in Genesis. Marriage is not a social
contract invented by men. It was the divine will of the Father from
the very beginning of history. Marriage is unequivocally one man
uniting with one woman for life.</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: #ff3333;"><b><span style="font-style: normal;">VIII.
</span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">Thou shalt not
steal</span></span> </b></span>
</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;">In
Acts 5:4, when Ananias had held back a portion of the proceeds he'd
made from selling some property, Peter asked him, rhetorically,
</span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><i>“</i></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Whiles
it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not
in thine own power?</span></i></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><i>”</i></span><span style="font-style: normal;">
Peter seems to affirm that the property Ananias sold was his own and
he had the right to do anything he wanted with the money. There are
several places in the Bible that affirm what we might call capitalism
but I can't think of any passage that overtly says, “you have a
right to own things.” It's more like it's simply understood to be
true. </span>
</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;">This
implicit understanding goes all the way back to the Garden. Genesis
2:15-17, </span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><i>“</i></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">And
the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to
dress it and to keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying,
Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in
the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.</span></i></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><i>”</i></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">God
seems to set a boundary with Adam where He says, “This is mine and
everything else is yours.”
</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>IX.
</b></span></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>Thou
shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.</b></span></span></span>
</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;">In
John 8:44, Jesus calls the Pharisees, sons of the devil. He said,
</span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><i>“</i></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Ye
are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will
do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth,
because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh
of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.</span></i></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><i>”</i></span><span style="font-style: normal;">
</span>
</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;">Satan
is indeed the father of lies. In his encounter with Eve, the serpent
spoke the first lies recorded in the Bible. Genesis 3:1-5, </span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><i>“</i></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><i>Now
the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the
LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye
shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto
the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But
of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God
hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye
die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes
shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”</i></span></span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>X.
</b></span></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>Thou
shalt not covet</b></span></span></span>
</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;">The
lies of Satan beguiled Eve and she began to covet. Genesis 3:6 says,
</span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><i>“</i></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><i>And
when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was
pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she
took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her
husband with her; and he did eat.</i></span></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><i>”</i></span><span style="font-style: normal;">
</span>
</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Coveting
is easily the most violated commandment. In Matthew 5:27-28, Jesus
explained that adultery included not only the physical act, but even
the desire to do the act. The Bible says that what a man purposes in
his heart, so is he. I didn't become a liar, for example, when I
spoke my first lie. I became a liar when I conceived in my mind that
I would tell a lie. When I finally spoke the lie, I was just doing
what liars do. Those who lust are adulterers, those who hate are
murderers, and those who envy are thieves.
</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Eve
didn't disobey God when she ate the fruit; she disobeyed God when she
desired to eat the fruit. The same is true for Adam.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">In conclusion, we can see the commandments are not simply a list of arbitrary rules. By understanding the creation account, we understand how things ought to be. Therefor, we can know why these things are wrong.</span>RKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-53260527104199707242018-07-24T07:33:00.004-04:002018-07-25T21:09:37.431-04:00Who doesn't understand evolution? Part 6, conclusion<span style="font-family: georgia, serif;">In
Tyler Francke's article, </span><a href="http://www.godofevolution.com/the-top-10-signs-that-you-dont-understand-evolution-at-all/" style="font-family: georgia, serif;">THE
TOP 10 SIGNS THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION AT ALL</a><span style="font-family: georgia, serif;">, Francke
sought to point out what he claimed were some common
misunderstandings creationists have of evolution. In my series
responding to his points, I believe I have demonstrated how the
“misunderstandings” were really straw men used to ridicule
creationists and that even some of Francke's explanations were
misrepresentations of evolution. In his final points, Francke makes
perhaps his most egregious misrepresentations.</span><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>9.
You don’t like Pokémon because you think it “promotes”
evolution.</b> </i></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>I
haven’t encountered this sentiment in my dealings on this site,
thankfully, but I was reminded of this “controversy” after the
recent release of the latest entries in the Pokémon franchise. </i></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Perhaps
the reason Francke never encountered this sentiment on his website is
because no creationist has ever seriously espoused it. Francke has
made the embarrassing mistake of believing a parody is real! </span></span>
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">There
was a <a href="https://www.wired.com/2007/04/school-bans-pok/">Wired
article</a> several years back that stated, <span style="color: #6666ff;"><i>“</i></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
Kansas State School Board has banned all things Pokemon from its
schools–not because it's keeping kids from doing their schoolwork,
but because they claim it promotes evolution.... The hullaballoo
started when a local religious group discovered that evolution is a
core element of Pokemon gameplay and started distributing pamphlets
warning about the game's "subversive content."</span></i></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><i>”</i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Hilarious.
Anyway, the Wired article was updated on 4/23/07 with this
amendment: <span style="color: #6666ff;"><i>“As pointed out in the wake of
the Square Enix parody story, this Game|Life post is drawn from the
same parody web site and is untrue. Game|Life deeply regrets the
error.”</i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Francke
wrote his article in November of 2013. It's sad that he believed
this parody for 6 years! Of course, I'm reading his article in 2018
and the error is still there so maybe he <i>still</i> believes it
after 11 years! Or maybe he knows it's debunked yet continues to
repeat it for people who will also be gullible enough to believe it.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://cerebralfaith.blogspot.com/2016/08/is-theistic-evolution-ad-hoc.html"><img border="0" data-original-height="261" data-original-width="400" height="208" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibBuS0nxxoTQdHTSpXPxw1bgT6ZVeIvmNW-sZYrUnsHudn-XmR0tibj7fMxNRWO5wPQG2SG-N6Sl4nHenezZFdWcruvpW5AtcqXC79hmt1vPcyKabed0u0ftpox_R6h8ERRjeh0cyrBBA/s320/Theistic+Evolution+Picture.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><strong><span style="color: #ff3333;"><i><span style="text-decoration: none;"><b>10.
You think it’s inherently opposed to Christianity or the Bible.</b></span></i></span></strong><span style="color: #ff3333;"><i><span style="text-decoration: none;">
</span></i></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Evolution,
as defined by Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes in their textbook,
“Biology,” is “any change in the frequency of alleles within a
gene pool from one generation to the next.” It is beyond me how
accepting this fact of science could possibly undermine one’s faith
in Jesus.</span></i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">If
a population of moths is 90% dark colored in one generation, then 85%
dark colored in the next, technically, it has “evolved.” Such a
trivial event <b>couldn't</b> undermine anyone's faith in Jesus.
Indeed, if that was all there was to evolution, there wouldn't be any
controversy. Francke is obviously reducing the theory to a benign
sounding, “change in the frequency of alleles,” to make it sound
less threatening. However, he <i>knows</i> that's not all there is to
it so he is being blatantly equivocal in what he is calling
evolution.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Evolution
practically demands that there was no Adam or Eve. Evolution is
absolutely incompatible with the recent, global flood described in
Genesis. Evolution makes a mockery of the genealogies given in both
the Old and New Testaments. Evolution renders an ordinary reading of
the plain words of the Bible impossible. Evolution would make our
perfect God a liar!</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1498552">Frank
Zindler</a>, an outspoken atheist, once said, </span></span><span style="color: #3333ff;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was
the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and
Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is
destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an
original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of
salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a
Savior. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into
the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the
death knell of Christianity.</span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: #3333ff;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></i></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So
we have a testimony straight from the horse's mouth, as it were.
Here is an atheist saying why he thinks evolution is the “death
knell” of Christianity. He's not alone in this attitude. Consider
this quote from that notorious critic, <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/22201-the-total-amount-of-suffering-per-year-in-the-natural">Richard
Dawkins</a>:</span></span><br />
<i style="color: #3333ff; font-family: georgia, serif;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></i>
<i style="color: #3333ff; font-family: georgia, serif;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all
decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose
this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many
others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are
slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of
all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be
so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will
automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural
state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of
electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic
replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are
going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor
any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the
properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no
purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.</span></i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Still
not enough? How about this gem from <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html">Talk
Origins</a>:</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #3333ff;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Many
organisms show features of appallingly bad design. This is because
evolution via natural selection cannot construct traits from scratch;
new traits must be modifications of previously existing traits. This
is called historical constraint. A few examples of bad design imposed
by historical constraint:...</span></i></span><span style="color: #3333ff;"><i>
</i></span><span style="color: #3333ff;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">In
human males, the urethra passes right through the prostate gland, a
gland very prone to infection and subsequent enlargement. This blocks
the urethra and is a very common medical problem in males. Putting a
collapsible tube through an organ that is very likely to expand and
block flow in this tube is not good design. Any moron with half a
brain (or less) could design male "plumbing" better.</span></i></span>
</span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Do
you get it, Francke? Are you starting to see now, Francke, how
evolution could possibly undermine a person's faith in Christ?
Perhaps you think trying to make Christianity compatible with
evolution will make it more appealing to the world. Maybe it does.
But you're replacing the God of the Bible with a lying, lazy,
incompetent, moron of a god who is indistinguishable from dumb luck.
There is no salvation in the god of theistic evolution. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
His conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus said, </span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">If
I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye
believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?</span></i></span></span>
(John 3:12). You're telling people that the Bible is wrong about
things like the creation and the flood but that it's right about the
after life. Does that make any sense? Evolution is not just another, harmless myth like Big Foot or pro wrestling. It’s a poison that destroys the gospel. <span style="font-size: small;">You're preaching
a false gospel, Francke. Shame on you.</span></span></div>
RKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-7846477465340877812018-07-20T09:43:00.003-04:002018-07-25T21:13:00.316-04:00Who doesn't understand evolution? Part 5<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">I've
been writing a series responding to Tyler Francke's article, </span><a href="http://www.godofevolution.com/the-top-10-signs-that-you-dont-understand-evolution-at-all/" style="font-family: georgia, serif;">THE
TOP 10 SIGNS THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION AT ALL</a><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">. I had
been covering two points with each of my posts until my last post
where I only covered one point. I had intended to conclude my series
by covering the last 3 points with this post but point #8 also has a
lot of material to cover so I've decided to cover only point #8 here
and will write one more post to conclude the series. Thanks for
bearing with me.</span><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><strong><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>8.
You think our modern understanding of it rests on a long series of
hoaxes perpetuated by scientists.</b></i></span></span></span></strong><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
</span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #ff3333;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Affirmed
by the likes of everyone’s favorite nut-job conspiracy theorist
meets cartoonist, Jack Chick, this idea is alive and well in
evangelical culture. And why shouldn’t it be? Repeatedly assured by
young-earth creationist groups that there is “absolutely no
evidence for evolution,” what else would explain the theory’s
unshakable dominance in the scientific community, courts and public
schools besides a vast atheist conspiracy? And so, young-earthers on
the Internet commonly parrot blatant falsehoods like “Archaeopteryx
was a hoax”... and “Java Man and Peking Man were frauds”.</span></i></span>
</span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Let
me start with a quick clarification. Evolution is indeed the
prevailing opinion within the scientific community – presumably
because they feel it's supported by the evidence (but maybe more so
because it's the only theory that fits the
“natural-explanations-only” paradigm which I'll address in a
moment). However, <span style="color: #ff3333;"><i>“the theory's
unshakable dominance”</i></span> in the courts and public schools
is not because the evidence for it is so overwhelming. It is because
any criticism of the theory in a public school is challenged in court
as a violation of the so-called “separation of church and state.”
To my knowledge, no court has ever tried the evidence for evolution
and judged it to be true. Rather, any competing theory – indeed,
any criticism of the theory – is simply declared a religious belief
and, so, is banned from public schools. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">OK,
back to the point. I absolutely believe that, if more people
understood evolution, fewer people would believe it. The acceptance
of evolution by the lay public has been made more successful by
intentional deception committed by the scientific community. I
wouldn't call it a hoax, per se, because the scientists may actually believe this one interpretation of the evidence. Is it a conspiracy? I'm reluctant to use
that word because it is so often associated with people like Jesse
Ventura. There is definitely something going on in the scientific
community. For the lay public, academia allows untruths and
half-truths about evolution to continue to be believed by the masses.
I'm not even talking about Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man, which
Francke mention in his article. I'm talking about modern examples of
objectively false information currently believed by the public to be
evidence for evolution. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I
could talk about the persistent spin that evolution has been declared
true by the supreme court but I've already discussed that. Let's
see... oh, here's one: Have you ever heard that human and chimp DNA
is 98% similar? This is often cited as “proof” that humans and
chimps are related. But have you ever heard the people who cite this
statistic also explain that chimp DNA is 10% longer than human DNA?
I'll bet you haven't. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
the book, <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=FPgWDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=the+genetic+comparison+is+misleading+because+it+ignores+qualitative+differences+among+genome&source=bl&ots=6An6wzKutF&sig=R3xIKq9EiKJj6A3foWYi3G1CFPc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2yMr33I7PAhXMFz4KHYZhAHoQ6AEIKDAB#v=onepage&q=the%20genetic%20comparison%20is%20misleading%20because%20it%20ignores%20qualitative%20differences%20among%20genome&f=false">Anthropology:
The Human Challenge</a>, we find the following quote: </span></span><span style="color: #3333ff;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Moreover,
the genetic comparison is misleading because it ignores qualitative
differences among genomes. Genetic evolution involves much more than
simply replacing one base with another. Thus, even among such close
relatives as human and chimpanzee, we find that the chimp’s genome
is estimated to be about 10 percent larger than the human’s....
[T]he tips of each chimpanzee chromosome contain a DNA sequence that
is not present in humans.</span></i></span></span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
</span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>The
seemingly amazing 98% similarity is achieved only by comparing
sections of the DNA and </i><i><b>not the entire genome</b></i><i>!</i>
Of course, the lay public thinks our DNA (the entire genome) is
nearly identical to a chimp's. A letter by letter comparison of the
entire genome shows human and chimp DNA is only 70-80% similar. </span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I'll
give only one more example of a commonly believed lie. Have you ever
heard that 99% of all the species that have ever lived are now
extinct? If life evolved from a single cell to everything that
exists today, it would sort of make sense there would have been
countless species in between. I heard an evolutionist once say in a
debate that we see this in the fossil record. What a liar! Did you
know there are more identified species living today than there are
extinct species found in the fossil record? I'll bet you didn't.
The statistic is merely an estimate that makes certain assumptions
about how long ago the first life form appeared and how long it takes
new species to appear. There are about 1.7 million species that have been named. There are maybe 10,000,000 that are believed to exist
but haven't been classified or even discovered. Compare that to only
250,000-500,000 extinct species known only from fossils. There is NO
fossil evidence for “billions of species” having lived in the
past. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">There
are many, many other other examples of these types of “factoids”
that are either blatant lies or grossly misunderstood. I've even
written a list of <a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2016/09/ten-lies-evolutionists-tell-part-1.html">10
common lies told by evolutionists</a>. Yet lay people believe them
and repeat them to support their belief in evolution. What's worse
though – far worse, in fact – is the coordinated effort within
the scientific community to squelch any research that might challenge
evolution. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Since
evolution is not real, it really has no impact on any part of
science. Evolutionary biologists talk a lot about evolution and hash
out their theory in peer reviewed papers but none of their work has
anything to do with science. All other scientists are able to do
their work just fine without ever thinking about evolution. If
everything we think we know about evolution turned out to be wrong,
no one else would change a single thing about the research they're
doing right now. It makes me a little curious about why they so
zealously defend a theory that contributes so little to science.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
first reason is because they have a commitment to naturalism.
<a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/">Scientific
American</a> admits to a natural bias. In an article containing 15
half-truths and strawmen aimed at confusing the public, they said
this:</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">A
central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism—it
seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable
natural mechanisms.</span> </i></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">You'll
have to ignore the irony for a moment – like, how can I observe or
test this tenet of science? My point in quoting this is to show how
mainstream science has disqualified, </span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>a
priori</b></i></span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">,
a miraculous creation as a possible explanation of the universe. Not
because they've carefully studied the evidence for creation and are
more persuaded by the arguments for evolution. No, it's because of
their <a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tenet">tenet</a> – an
opinion, belief, or principle that is held as absolute truth – that
says they will only ever consider a natural explanation for anything.
</span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgADcIClBp9GKPKQF23E0kv7gcf19gicCjo5RMTRfQ5ycfRJpzF5tIJucDThXTlqH27snx3ZtWyNQ69LWVToBkMjBGzmAZqK10Oj_MmJp9m5L-pu2zDNc8mdJTZmGVoXjZqdVcmz-AhFxA/s1600/expelled.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="242" data-original-width="450" height="172" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgADcIClBp9GKPKQF23E0kv7gcf19gicCjo5RMTRfQ5ycfRJpzF5tIJucDThXTlqH27snx3ZtWyNQ69LWVToBkMjBGzmAZqK10Oj_MmJp9m5L-pu2zDNc8mdJTZmGVoXjZqdVcmz-AhFxA/s320/expelled.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Ben
Stein made a movie several years ago called, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Expelled-Intelligence-Allowed-Ben-Stein/dp/B001BYLFFS">Expelled:
No Intelligence Allowed</a>, where he detailed some of the systematic
discrimination in the scientific community against creationists and
proponents of Intelligent Design. This has always been the case and
I've observed it for decades.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">From
one <a href="https://answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/do-creationists-publish-in-notable-refereed-journals/">Answers
in Genesis</a> article, we find the following quote:</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">In
the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal </span><span style="font-weight: normal;">Science</span><span style="font-weight: normal;">
pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most
journals. He asked if </span><span style="font-weight: normal;">Science</span><span style="font-weight: normal;">
had “a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters.”
Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, “It is
true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters.”</span>
</i></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
2004, Smithsonian editor, Richard Sternberg dared to allow a paper
favoring intelligent design to be published. <a href="http://www.richardsternberg.com/smithsonian.php">In
his account</a> of the “controversy” he said, </span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Because
Dr. Meyer’s article presented scientific evidence for intelligent
design in biology, I faced retaliation, defamation, harassment, and a
hostile work environment at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of
Natural History that was designed to force me out as a Research
Associate there. These actions were taken by federal government
employees acting in concert with an outside advocacy group, the
National Center for Science Education. Efforts were also made to get
me fired from my job as a staff scientist at the National Center for
Biotechnology Information.</span></i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Very
early in my blogging career, <a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2007/12/your-bias-is-showing_3634.html">I
wrote about</a> the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution firing a
researcher </span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>solely
because he was a creationist</i></span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">.
In a <a href="http://archive.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/12/07/biologist_fired_for_beliefs_suit_says/?page=2">Boston.com</a>
article about the case, Woods Hole, </span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">studies
how aquatic animals respond to chemical contaminants by examining '.
. . mechanisms </span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>from
a comparative/evolutionary perspective</b></i></span></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">.'</span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
Did you catch that? </span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">“from
an evolutionary perspective.”</span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
Anyway, Hahn, the senior scientist as Woods Hole is quoted as
saying, </span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">This
position is incompatible with the work as proposed to NIH and with </span></i></span></span></span><em><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">my
own vision of how it should be carried out and interpreted</span></i></span></span></span></em><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
</span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">In
other words, Woods Hole only ever considers the evidence from an
evolutionary perspective and is not interested in hiring someone who
interprets the evidence any other way.</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></span></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Just
recently, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rts6wGjJpXE">Bob
Enyart</a>, a radio talk-show host and creationist, offered Jack
Horner, a paleontologist, a $20,000 grant if Horner would just give
permission to test a t-rex fossil for carbon-14. After much hemming
and hawing, Horner refused saying, </span></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Your
group is a group of creationists and... and... and... the spin they
could get off of it, doing it, is not gonna help us.</span></i></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">I've
heard a thousand times that science goes wherever the evidence leads.
Perhaps I should add that to my <a href="https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2016/09/ten-lies-evolutionists-tell-part-1.html">list of lies evolutionists tell</a>.
They refuse to consider any evidence that goes against their precious
theory. They organize groups like <a href="https://ncse.com/">NCSE</a>
to make sure nothing critical of evolution is ever spoken in public schools. If a
teacher so much as says, “we should critically examine evolution,” he is branded a creationists and slapped with a lawsuit. Any scientist
who is even suspected of being sympathetic to creationism is at risk
of losing his job. Is it a conspiracy? Well, if it looks like a
duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then maybe it is a
duck.</span></span></span></span></span></div>
RKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-47140448834809987002018-06-30T07:21:00.000-04:002018-08-09T07:06:26.232-04:00Who doesn't understand evolution? Part 4<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">When
I began this series, my plan was that each post I write would cover 2
points of Tyler Francke's article, </span><a href="http://www.godofevolution.com/the-top-10-signs-that-you-dont-understand-evolution-at-all/" style="font-family: georgia, serif;">THE
TOP 10 SIGNS THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION AT ALL</a><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">. There
are still 4 points left to cover but one of them is so ridiculous, I
don't need to waste much time covering it, which means there are only
3 more that need to be addressed. Point number 7, though, has a lot
of different directions I could go so I'm going to spend this post
covering just this one point and will cover the next 3 point in my
final post.</span><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>7.
You think acceptance of evolution is the same as religious faith.</b></i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Another
one that you may have heard from our friend, Banana Ray. In his film
“EvG” (which is subtitled, “Shaking the Foundations of Faith”),
he underscores this supposed parallel by asking his victims — oh, I
mean, “interview subjects” — ridiculous questions like “Are
you a </span></i></span></span></span><em><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">strong</span></i></span></span></span></em><em><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></i></span></span></span></em><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">believer
in evolution?” and “When did you first start believing in
evolution?” His point, as he goes on to explain, is that anyone who
accepts the truth of evolution based on the testimony of expert
scientists is relying on “blind faith” in the same way atheists
accuse religious people of doing.</span></i></span></span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
</span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">There's
a little confusion about the difference between belief and faith.
Generally, people attach a religious connotation to the word <i>faith</i>
but I don't agree that's entirely appropriate. Let me give you an
analogy. In English, we have the words <i>belief</i> and <i>believe</i>.
One is a noun and one is a verb but we understand that they
basically carry the same root meaning. Are you with me so far? OK.
Now, in the New Testament, the Greek words <i>faith</i> and <i>believe</i>
are basically the same too! </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
noun, </span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>pistis</i></span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
(</span></span><span style="color: #001320;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">πίστις,
</span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://biblehub.com/greek/4102.htm"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Strong's
word 4102</span></span></a><span style="color: #001320;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">),
is generally translated as “faith” rather than “belief.” Its
cognate verb, </span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: #001320;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">pisteuo</span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: #001320;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
(πιστεύω, </span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://biblehub.com/greek/4100.htm"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Strong's
word 4100</span></span></a><span style="color: #001320;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">),
is generally translated as “believe” rather than “have faith.”
So, as we read the Bible, </span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: #001320;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">believing</span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: #001320;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
and </span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: #001320;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">having
faith</span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: #001320;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
is a distinction without a difference. </span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Do
we believe in God? Do we believe Jesus is the Christ? Do we believe
the things in the Bible? If so, then we have faith.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
most famous chapter on faith in the Bible is probably Hebrews 11.
Hebrews 11:7 says, <span style="color: #6666ff;"><i>“</i></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">By
faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with
fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house.</span></i></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><i>”
</i></span>In other words, Noah <i>believed</i> God about something
that had not happened. He built the Ark and was saved as a result.
He was literally saved by his faith!</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Christians
believe pretty much for the same reasons anyone believes anything –
they are convinced that what they believe is true. I believe Jesus
lived, died, and rose again. I believe when I repented and accepted
Him as my Lord, that He forgave my sins. I believe that He is seated
on the right hand of the Father, even now, making intercession for
me. This isn't wishful thinking. This isn't something that I hope
is true without having any good reason to believe that it is.
Romans 1:19-20 says, <span style="color: #6666ff;"><i>“</i></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><i>[T]</i></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">hat
which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it
unto them.</span></i></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><i> </i></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">For
the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:</span></i></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><i>”</i></span>
Everything I can see in the creation and everything that I've ever
learned about history convinces me that what I believe is true!</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Though
Francke says that “blind faith” is frowned upon from a secular
perspective, he seems to endorse blind faith when it comes to
believing the Bible. Francke said, </span></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>“</i></span></span></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>'</i></span></span></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Blind
faith' does indeed have pejorative connotations in secular usage, but
RayCo lends credence to these undertones in a way that no </span></i></span></span></span><strong><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>True
Christian™ </b></i></span></span></span></strong><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">should.
That’s because the Bible talks about “blind” </span></i></span></span></span><em><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">religious</span></i></span></span></span></em><em><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></i></span></span></span></em><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">faith,
and its description is anything but negative. In John 20:29, Jesus
declares that those who “believe </span></i></span></span></span><em><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">without
seeing</span></i></span></span></span></em><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><i>”
</i></span></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">are
“blessed” (contrasting them with </span></i></span></span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubting_Thomas"><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><i>“</i></span></span></span></a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubting_Thomas"><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">doubting”
Thomas</span></i></span></span></span></span></a><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
who asked for proof).</span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>”</i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Francke
is misrepresenting the Bible. What Francke doesn't seem to get is
that Thomas was refusing to believe </span><span style="font-size: small;"><i>the
testimony of the apostles!</i></span><span style="font-size: small;"> They had seen the
Savior alive but Thomas refused to believe until he saw Jesus for
himself. This is the same attitude many skeptics express today.
Jesus's ministry on earth only lasted a short time. The vast
majority of people in history were not alive during the few, short
years of His Incarnation. If the standard for believing in Christ is
that we see Him with our own eyes, then most of humanity is doomed.
However, that's not the standard. We have the written accounts of
His resurrection and we can believe the things written in the gospels
and be saved. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">John
19:33-35 says, </span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>“</i></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">But
when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake
not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side,
and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare
record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true,
that ye might believe.”</span></i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">John
is giving details about the death of Jesus. He is establishing his
credibility as an eyewitness to the event. Later, John saw Jesus
alive again. I don't believe in the Resurrection because some
wild-eyed preacher told me about a man I'd never heard of, who rose
from the dead 2,000 years ago. I believe because I have the
un-impeached testimony of someone who was there. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
John 17:18-20, Jesus prayed, </span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>“</i></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">As
thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into
the world.</span></i></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><i> </i></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">And
for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified
through the truth.</span></i></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>
</i></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Neither
pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me
through their word;</span></i></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>”</i></span></span><span style="font-size: small;">
Jesus prayed specifically for the sake of the millions through
history who believed in Him because of testimonies of the apostles.
We should do what Jesus said and believe in Him because of what has
been handed down to us by those who knew Him!</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
irony is that, while Francke claims blind faith is necessary to
believe the Bible, he himself seems to only believe those parts of
the Bible which he feels has the doubting Thomas kind of proof. He doesn't believe in creation
on "blind faith," for example. Instead, he has adopted the secular
theories of proud atheists and has twisted the Scriptures to
accommodate their godless theories. How sad.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Next,
Francke said, </span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Don’t
misunderstand me. I’m a big supporter of critical thought — and
of an engaged populace that rationally considers the information it
receives before accepting it.</span></i></span></span> </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
his video, <a href="https://youtu.be/U0u3-2CGOMQ">Evolution Vs God</a>,
Ray Comfort isn't necessarily trying to convince these people that
their faith is just like Christian faith. He's trying to get these
young people, mostly college students, to see that they claim to
believe something and can't even cite a good reason why. Theirs is
truly a blind faith. Obviously, t</span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">he
students in the video didn't rationally consider evolution. When
Comfort pressed them about their belief in evolution, they couldn't
name a single reason why they believed it. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">Francke
continued, <span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">But
there are far worse people one could open one’s mind to than those
who are sharing their expertise within the fields they have risen to
the top of — especially when their conclusions are based on
mountains of hard evidence</span></i></span></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">that
are available to anyone who doesn’t willfully choose to ignore it.</span></i></span></span>
</span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">Do I need
to remind Francke that the students in the video all claimed to be
atheists?! The people to whom they've opened their minds are people
like P.Z. Myers (also shown in the video). Myers, of course,
zealously preaches atheism and attacks Christianity – young earth
creationists in particular. You see, these young people have been
sold a bill of goods. They have been taught that atheism is the
default position of intellectual. The students in the video were
quick to admit their atheism. Some seemed very smug, even proud of
it. So I'm going to have to disagree and say, no, there is nothing
worse than rejecting the truth of Jesus. Romans 1 talks about people
who reject the truth of God and willingly believe a lie. Romans 1:22
says, <span style="color: #6666ff;"><i>“Professing themselves to be wise,
they became fools.”</i></span> </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">I remember
myself at their age. I thought I knew everything. These students
were so smug and boldly touted their atheism as though they were
enlightened. When challenged by Ray Comfort on what they believed,
they began to soften their position and rethink what they had been
taught. If any of them came to Christ as a result, Francke should be
glad! Instead, he ridicules Comfort and defends rabid theophobes
like P.Z. Myers. This is why I cannot tolerate the false gospel of
theistic evolution. I see far too many evolutionists who claim to be
Christians, condemning brothers in Christ while praising unbelievers
like Myers. Incredible!</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">Matthew
7:15-16, <span style="color: #6666ff;"><i>“</i></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Beware
of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but
inwardly they are ravening wolves.</span></i></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><i>
</i></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Ye
shall know them by their fruits.”</span></i></span></span></span></div>
<br />
<div lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjhqVIhWjdT04NnsRW4ylZm4MDB5vlD21jJgGYUMEG8-obusGzEMm1CTknFPh68menP54ZFbDJYeijJD26RUthxFimVudmQhYKbZNW1ZNBkRb9s_-X9CKGatNfk_rghxtHY9DewfpkVVg/s1600/Myers+Comfort.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="541" data-original-width="648" height="532" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjhqVIhWjdT04NnsRW4ylZm4MDB5vlD21jJgGYUMEG8-obusGzEMm1CTknFPh68menP54ZFbDJYeijJD26RUthxFimVudmQhYKbZNW1ZNBkRb9s_-X9CKGatNfk_rghxtHY9DewfpkVVg/s640/Myers+Comfort.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Related
posts:</i></span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2016/01/why-is-atheism-default-belief_8.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-US"><i>Why
is Atheism the “Default” Belief?</i></span></span></a></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2016/03/why-must-faith-mean-blind-faith.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-US"><i>Why
must “faith” mean “blind faith”?</i></span></span></a></span></div>
<div lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2016/07/evolution-and-christianity-make-strange.html">Evolution
and Christianity make strange bedfellows</a></i></span></span></div>
RKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-79957801247530258792018-06-12T07:27:00.000-04:002018-06-12T07:33:19.139-04:00Who doesn't understand evolution? Part 3<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9hgzVMchvvrdrNl8vu7_V2PBVP_L6QsY6p4aIY1LrRIKVP08ZRNrx81q6XakADPiP75qMDrRrHEOskZI7nBjiXmASgfrzaDQr2BxN_EQuzCTeprLOrB79NvdLrs8B_74Y8XrP-96VesY/s1600/MIller+pic.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="576" data-original-width="1024" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9hgzVMchvvrdrNl8vu7_V2PBVP_L6QsY6p4aIY1LrRIKVP08ZRNrx81q6XakADPiP75qMDrRrHEOskZI7nBjiXmASgfrzaDQr2BxN_EQuzCTeprLOrB79NvdLrs8B_74Y8XrP-96VesY/s400/MIller+pic.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><strong><span style="color: #ff6666;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>5.
You think it has anything to do with the origin of life, let alone
the origins of the universe.</b></i></span></span></span></strong></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #ff6666;"><i>This
is like the king of all straw men, and it’s extremely common. It
involves something like the thoroughly debunked theory of spontaneous
generation (the idea that life can come from non-life under normal
circumstances) being used as evidence against the theory of
evolution. Hear me on this, guys: </i></span><span style="color: #ff6666;"><i><b>Evolution
has nothing to do with the origin of life.</b></i></span><span style="color: #ff6666;"><i>
</i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #ff6666;"><i><br /></i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Strictly
speaking, biological evolution does not address either the origin of
life nor the origin of the universe. I get it. What evolutionists
don't seem to get is that <i>creationism does!</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
So when we're talking about the origin of everything, we're
comparing the miraculous explanation with the natural “explanations”
of everything (I put explanations in quotation marks because there
really are no compelling, scientific explanations of things like the
origin of matter/energy or abiogenesis). In other words, we're
comparing everything about origins and we're just calling the natural
explanations, “evolution,” for the sake of brevity. </span></span></span><span style="font-family: georgia, serif;">You
see, in the evolution v. creation debate, “evolution” is
sometimes used as a term of convenience – just like “evolutionist.”
We're not limiting the discussion to just the common descent of all
life from a single common ancestor, we're also talking about things
like the origin of the supposed ancestor and the origin of time,
matter, and space. There just isn't a convenient term that
encompasses all secular theories of our origins so creationists
sometimes lump them all into “evolution.” And </span><span style="font-family: georgia, serif;">let's be honest, evolutionists – people who believe in evolution –
invariably also believe in abiogenesis and the Big Bang. It should be no surprise, then, that we describe their entire set of beliefs with a single term. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: georgia, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: georgia, serif;">Furthermore, even evolutionists sometimes use the term, </span><i style="font-family: georgia, serif;">evolution</i><span style="font-family: georgia, serif;">,
in much the same way as creationists do. How many times have you
heard the debate described as “evolution versus creationism?”
Creation, as described in Genesis includes the origin of
space/matter/time and the origin of life. So when evolutionists
compare “evolution” with “creationism,” it has to include everything involved in both sets of belief.</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I think it's strange that critics ever use this objection. I mean,
let's face it, for something that's not part of their theory, they
certainly spend a lot of time talking about it. For example,
Berkley.edu has a web page called, Understanding Evolution, which
begins with a section titled, “<a href="https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/origsoflife_01">From
soup to cells – the origin of life</a>.” From that site, we read
the following, </span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>“</i></span></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Evolution
encompasses a wide range of phenomena: from the emergence of major
lineages, to mass extinctions, to the evolution of antibiotic
resistant bacteria in hospitals today. However, within the field of
evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest
because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all
living things) came from.</span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>”
</i></span></span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">It
seems, at least, that Berkley feels the origin of life is of </span></span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>special
interest</b></span></span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">
</span></span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>“within
the field of evolutionary biology.”</i></span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">
</span></span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Also,
I don't even need to point out all the biology text books that still
include the Miller-Urey experiment from nearly 70 years ago! Why is
such an old experiment, </span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>one
which failed to produce life</i></span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">,
still included in biology books if abiogenesis has nothing to do with
evolution? </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">They
can't have it both ways. They spend time talking about the origin of
life, yet when creationists point out there is no natural explanation
for the origin of life, evolutionists retreat to, “well, that's not
part of the theory.” This objection is obviously a red herring.
Evolutionists don't like to be called out for clinging to an idea
that is virtually indistinguishable from “spontaneous generation,”
which has been debunked for more than a century. They know the
origin of life is a legitimate question, which is why they research
it, but when pressed on the issue, they want to end the discussion.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Related
posts:</i></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2012/02/7-theories-on-origin-of-life.html"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">7
Theories on the Origin of Life</span></span></span></a></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2012/04/so-this-is-real-theory-of-abiogenesis.html"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">So
This is the “Real” Theory of Abiogenesis, Eh?</span></span></span></a></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2011/08/are-amino-acids-building-blocks-of-life.html"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">Are
Amino Acids the Building Blocks of Life?</span></span></span></a></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><strong><span style="color: #ff6666;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><i><b>6.
You use the phrase “it’s only a theory” and think you’ve made
some kind of substantive statement.</b></i></span></span></strong><span style="color: #ff6666;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><i>
</i></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #ff6666;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">I
think the “only a theory” argument is so popular because of the
unfortunate disparity between the common definition of “theory”
in American pop culture, and the working definition of the word in
science. In popular usage, “theory” means a “hunch” or a
“guess” — and it’s the opposite of a “fact.” It’s
conjecture, a shot in the dark that has just as much chance (and
probably even more so) of being wrong as it has of being right.</span></i>
</span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I'm
pretty sure Francke speaks English, right? Because, when he makes
comments like this, it's like he's not familiar with the language at
all. Since when does “theory” ever mean <i>“a shot in the dark
that has just as much chance of being wrong as it has of being
right”?</i> If you google the definition of theory, it says, <span style="color: #6666ff;"><i>“</i></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">a
supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something,
especially one based on general principles independent of the thing
to be explained.</span></i></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><i>”
</i></span>Francke's unusual definition is merely a straw man that he
can use to ridicule people who use the criticism, “evolution is
only a theory.” </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkj6T9I1mqE_WiyPnjGR5RmkN9Nwe53KME6D9FSDyeo7HnVFHG6SfU_h7-tAGXgNnPr4PrGhGKyviX_TrJPB8S3d4Ukvmt2dyUNnKbl7S4kZNR8R1j8yjVU0w2lIVQf9b8IsYU5FHaRig/s1600/Definition+theory.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="453" data-original-width="657" height="275" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkj6T9I1mqE_WiyPnjGR5RmkN9Nwe53KME6D9FSDyeo7HnVFHG6SfU_h7-tAGXgNnPr4PrGhGKyviX_TrJPB8S3d4Ukvmt2dyUNnKbl7S4kZNR8R1j8yjVU0w2lIVQf9b8IsYU5FHaRig/s400/Definition+theory.PNG" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Now,
the scientific community claims to be a little more stringent about
which set of ideas qualifies to be called a theory. To call
something a “scientific” theory supposedly means that set of
ideas has been repeatedly tested confirmed through observation and
experimentation. Of course, they loose all credibility when they use
the term, “theory of abiogenesis.” Abiogenesis has never been
observed anywhere. We don't know how life began so there can be no
scientific theory of abiogenesis. All we have are <i><b>theories</b></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,</span></span>
<i>plausible explanations based on general principles</i>, about how
it might have happened. In other words, the scientific community
frequently uses the word theory in much the same way they harp on the
general public for using it!</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">This
goes back to what I was saying in my <a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2018/05/who-doesnt-understand-evolution-part-1.html">first
post of this series</a>: we examine the evidence and invent theories
to explain the evidence. That's all we ever do because we can't
observe theories. Evolutionists frequently want to conflate the
evidence with their conclusions about the evidence. They want to
blur the line between objective facts we can observe and the
conclusions we make about those facts. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">To
illustrate this point, here's an analogy I've used before. You can
open a carton of eggs and see there are a dozen. That's an objective
fact. But <i>why</i> are there a dozen? It's easier to count by 10
than by 12 so why don't we sell eggs in cartons of 10? I believe
it's because there are more ways to divide 12 evenly than 10. That's
my <i>theory</i> – my explanation of why eggs are sold in dozens.
I could interview farmers, do historical research, or even try a
google search. Maybe my theory will be confirmed or maybe it will be
falsified. Either way, <i>why</i> there are a dozen eggs will never
be held in the same regard as the fact that <i>there are</i> a dozen
eggs. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
an <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X_0WJ9tyAc&feature=youtu.be">interview
with Larry King</a>, theophobe, Bill Nye made the following comment:</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #6666ff;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">My
concern has always been you can't use tax dollars intended for
science education to teach something akin to the earth is 10,000
years old. To... 'cause that's just wrong. It's very much analogous
to saying the earth is flat. I mean, you can show the earth is not
flat; you can show the earth is not 10,000 years old.</span></i></span>
</span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Nye
is saying he can show us the age of the earth just like he can show
us the shape of the earth. <i>No he cant!</i> We can observe
certain features of the earth and draw conclusions about its age but
we can't observe our conclusions any more than we can open a carton
of eggs and observe why there are a dozen!</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">When
a creationist says, it's only a “theory,” he's expressing his
doubts about evolution as an explanation of the objective, observable
facts. He's drawing a distinction about what we know from observation and what we know from inference. It's as simple as that. Then some evolutionist responds with
a technical definition of the term “theory,” and thinks he's made
some kind of substantive statement. Please spare me. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Related
posts:</i></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2016/12/evolution-is-just-theory-after-all.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Evolution
is “just” a theory after all</span></a></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2016/03/maybe-ken-ham-is-wrong-but-bill-nye-is.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Maybe
Ken Ham is wrong but Bill Nye is more wrong!</span></a></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2008/01/truth-trumps-theory_5708.html">Truth
Trumps Theory</a></span></span></span></div>
RKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-70817923899862746632018-05-28T17:52:00.001-04:002018-07-26T21:49:34.605-04:00Who doesn't understand evolution? Part 2<strong style="font-family: georgia, serif;"><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="color: red; font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><i><b>3.
You think macroevolution is an inherently different process than
microevolution.</b></i></span></span></strong><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">In his
article, <a href="http://www.godofevolution.com/the-top-10-signs-that-you-dont-understand-evolution-at-all/">THE
TOP 10 SIGNS THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION AT ALL</a>, Tyler
Francke said, <span style="color: red;">“</span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="color: red; font-weight: normal;">At
its core, “macroevolution” is simply the steady accumulation of
the small changes we observe in “microevolution.” </span></i></span></span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">Francke
has repeated one of the 10 lies told by evolutionists. In fact, this
is perhaps one of the better examples of the lie; I think I'll
probably cite it many times in future posts. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">Not all
<i>change</i> is equal. For a species to evolve, new traits would
have to be <i>added</i> to the population. To turn a dinosaur into a
bird, for example, you would have to add feathers. The supposed,
first common ancestor had neither scales nor feathers. Neither did
it have skin or bones or blood or organs of any kind. To turn a
molecule into a man, it would require a millions of years long parade
of new features constantly being added. Natural selection, on the
other hand, can only <i>remove</i> traits already present in the
population. It should be agonizingly clear that you cannot add
traits by continuously removing traits.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://borne.wordpress.com/2017/10/03/who-invented-the-macro-vs-micro-evolution-terms/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://borne.wordpress.com/2017/10/03/who-invented-the-macro-vs-micro-evolution-terms/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="400" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsmBC02orDNKQ-FIkqgoqMaOJRvZEfMhZdrQ-quUPGmO21ka_ptCPb49FrCXErI-hq_GRrRBUXoqBWX8_V5LmUyf0vBJIfoTwnFArlUqdHSG3k5Ct2pPZ5_PMv6XwDTrKNgJMWt0ypsA4/s400/2480evolution-happen-lab.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">In the
famous example of peppered moth “evolution,” the ratio of
light/dark moths changed over time in response to changes in the
environment. Some people call this “microevolution” and it does
fit the technical definition of evolution. But please explain to me
how birds continuously eating one color of moth can ever add <i>new</i>
colors to the population? You cannot add colors by continuously
removing colors no matter how long you do it. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">Francke
said, <span style="color: red;"><i>“It seems any sane person must admit
that, if small changes can occur, then it is logically consistent
that small changes adding up over extremely long periods of time
would result in very large changes.”</i></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">Evolutionists
like Francke would have us believe that birds continuously eating one
color of moth could eventually change it into something that is not a
moth – it just has to continue for a long enough time. What sane
person would believe that?! </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">If
evolutionists want to convince people that evolution is possible,
they need to stop talking about examples like the peppered moth and
start showing us examples of trait-adding mutations. There's a
reason they don't. It's because examples of
natural selection removing traits are common place while examples of
trait-adding mutations are scare or non-existent. By continuing to
repeat the lie that any change over time can result in big change,
evolutionists are either ignorant of their own theory or are preying
on the ignorance of the less informed. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Related
posts:</i></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2016/09/ten-lies-evolutionists-tell-part-2.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Ten
Lies Evolutionists Tell: Part 2</span></a></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2012/05/natural-selection-is-opposite-of.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Natural
Selection is the Opposite of Evolution</span></a></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2012/06/trait-adding-mutations-ill-show-you-why.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Trait
Adding Mutations? I'll Show You Why More is Sometimes Less</span></a></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2013/01/natural-selection-evolution-and.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Natural
Selection, Evolution, and Watermelons</span></a></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><i><b>4.
You think mutations are always negative. </b></i></span></span>
</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="color: red;"><i>This
is another one of those incredibly common and completely untrue
statements that nothing more than a few minutes’ research on the
Internet could have corrected. The truth is that mutations in nature
are usually neutral — i.e., they have no effect on the gene or
resulting protein.</i></span> </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://dnasu.com/what-is-a-dna-mutation/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="406" data-original-width="650" height="248" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglkwfjEytDJ9VNPDxkPSjWGKaohSD9M9vFTyqf71WUBgT4P5GzcJdPIDzNTca1E5qWfVIH5-eyAKkJJO1PapzAlaL9bSQA3L6p4SUQjcJTt-plHxjy-y3Q-Qs2GmI1MGgQ8jkg1KNNCms/s400/Mutations.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">Francke
should be more careful with his wording. Even “neutral”
mutations have an effect on the gene. What he means to say is that
neutral mutations seem to have no effect on the host animal. This is
a significant point and not merely a game of semantics. In a real
sense, genetic mutations <i>are</i> always negative in that they are
mistakes or errors in the genome. Even if they seem to have no
effect on the host they are still present in the gene and will be
passed along to the offspring. Over many generations, the mutations
will continue to accumulate and there becomes a greater danger of
some mutation becoming expressed. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">Expressed
mutations in genes are usually called genetic disorders. My son, for
example, has a fairly ordinary genetic disorder – he's color blind.
He probably inherited it from his maternal grandfather who is also
color blind. It's not a debilitating disorder and my son leads a
fairly normal life. There are occasions, though, when his color
blindness has caused a certain amount of difficulty. Once, when he
was younger, he followed me out into the parking lot of our church
and he was attempting to get into the wrong car. My car was red and
he was trying the door of a green car. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">Some
genetic disorders are very serious – even life threatening.
Francke mentioned sickle-cell anemia, which is a genetic disorder
that causes red blood cells to be deformed. People with sickle-cell
suffer a variety of symptoms and tend to live shorter lives. But it
is true that the deformed, blood cells cannot host malaria parasites
so people who have sickle-cell cannot have malaria. Perhaps this is
an advantage in environments where malaria is a real threat.
Otherwise, the small benefit of malaria immunity does not outweigh
the host of maladies people with sickle-cell suffer. It's a wonder
how evolutionists continue using this as an example of “evolution.”</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">We actually
have observed several genetic mutations that convey a benefit to the
hosts in certain environments – blind cave fish, wingless beetles,
and tusk-less elephants are examples. However, nearly all of these
represent mutations where the host creature looses something (like
eyes, wings, or tusks). Furthermore, the mutation is usually weeded
out of the gene pool when the animal is reintroduced back into the
general population. Even so, examples of mutations removing traits
from animals doesn't really help evolution which requires animals to
acquire new traits. That is, a fish born without eyes doesn't
explain how a dinosaur could acquire feathers. The blind fish may
have an advantage in a cave where there's no light but it really
doesn't help the theory of evolution in the least.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">Why do
evolutionists continue to hold up such weak examples of “beneficial”
mutations? They're certainly not convincing examples of “evolution.”
It's for the same reason I've already stated above: examples of
trait-adding mutations are astonishingly scare. When I ask for
examples of new traits being observed in a population, I only ever
hear the same 3-4 questionable examples. If evolution were true, new
traits would have to appear in populations fairly frequently. We
should have plenty of examples – but we don't. That's why they
continuously trot out the same few over and over and over and over. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">There's one
more thing about mutations that spell trouble for evolution. For
every beneficial mutations that might happen, there are far, far more
neutral or harmful mutations that occur. A creature may have 1,000
neutral or harmful mutations to every one beneficial mutation. Why
can't evolutionists see the obvious problem with this? The genome is
deteriorating 1,000 faster than it's improving. For a creature to
inherit just two beneficial mutations means there would be 1,000,000
neutral or harmful mutations! To inherit 3 successful mutations
means there would be 1,000,000,000 unsuccessful mutations. How long
could such a wasteful process continue until the genome becomes to
corrupt to sustain life? </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">Yikes!</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Related
posts:</i></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2012/06/mutations-make-creature-more-evolved.html">“<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Mutations”
Make a Creature More Evolved?</span></span></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2017/04/its-numbers-game-and-evolution-is-losing.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;">It's
a numbers game... and evolution is losing!</span></a></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2016/01/1-2-skip-few-99-100.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;">1,
2, skip a few, 99, 100!</span></a></span></div>
<br />RKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-14405014912816103592018-05-25T09:28:00.002-04:002018-05-25T12:23:08.597-04:00Who doesn't understand evolution? Part 1<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><a href="http://www.godofevolution.com/the-top-10-signs-that-you-dont-understand-evolution-at-all/"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="300" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2a72DHtxcCLCwU4Nv12-CimCixSWLQD1Zno8MaFPdzayVjIEjf79bXfeDyuw5kzSkJQnKQ5opt7E3TrmNWbFhxU49bU7MSGVDiRobcm73GLU-92gLdCeRADwmfQ6BXoGBEm9sCWqQ-jI/s320/confused-man-in-suit.jpg" width="266" /></a></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I
came across an article the other day that listed <a href="http://www.godofevolution.com/the-top-10-signs-that-you-dont-understand-evolution-at-all/">THE
TOP 10 SIGNS THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION AT ALL</a>. It's
written by Tyler Francke, who also wrote <a href="http://www.godofevolution.com/10-theological-questions-no-young-earth-creationist-can-answer/">10
THEOLOGICAL QUESTIONS NO YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONIST CAN ANSWER</a> (all
10 of which I answered <a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2015/07/answering-10-theological-questions-that.html">here</a>).
It seems Francke has a penchant for Top 10 lists with presumptuous
titles. Anyway, I thought I'd write a reply and, so, went through my
usual, internal struggle – should I write a series or not? Once
again, I chose to write a series. Sigh. I intend to cover 2 points
per post so the entire series shouldn't be more than 5 posts long.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">It's
a common fallacy suggested by evolutionists that creationists don't
believe evolution because they don't understand evolution. It's a
classic <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman">No
True Scotsman argument</a> where the critic is basically saying,
“Everyone who understands evolution believes it.” No matter how
well a creationist might understand the theory, unless he believes
it, the critic will continue to accuse him of not understanding it.
Worse yet, critics often accuse creationists of lying. To ardent
evolutionists, it's impossible to imagine how anyone can understand
evolution and still sincerely disagree with it.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Now,
I'll admit there might be some things about evolution that some
creationists misunderstand. Let's face it – no one is an expert in
everything and most people aren't evolutionary biologists. However,
I would say that the average, lay creationist understands evolution
about as well as the average evolutionist. It's a fact that most
creationists went to public schools and learned about evolution while
sitting in the same classrooms as evolutionists. What I find amusing
is that some evolutionists are very forgiving of people who
misunderstand the theory as long as those people believe the theory.
I can sort of understand why a person might disagree with something
he doesn't understand but is it any better for a person to be
zealously committed to a theory he doesn't understand?</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Consider
this too, whether or not a person understands something is not
evidence for or against that thing. Some subjects are complicated
and even if there are things I don't understand about it, doesn't
mean I'm wrong about the things I do understand. I may not be able
to write a scientific paper on gravity but I know what happens if I
drop an egg. If someone else wrote a scientific paper saying that
gravity is an illusion and he included several, complicated,
mathematical formulas to prove his point, it wouldn't matter if I
don't understand the math. I still know what happens when I drop an
egg. The truth of any theory doesn't rise or fall on any person's
ability to understand it. Reality doesn't care what we think about
it.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
short, the 10 points listed here are primarily straw men arguments of
creationists' positions. Rather than pointing out where any
creationist may be wrong, I think they are more successful in
revealing the flawed – even deceptive – arguments frequently used
by evolutionists who try to shame or embarrass creationists into
being silent. The article should have been titled, 10 Stupid
Arguments Evolutionists Use Against Creationists.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Are
we ready? Then let's get started!</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><strong><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><i><b>1.
You think “it hasn’t been observed” is a good argument against
it.</b></i></span></span></strong><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><i>
</i></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">If
you think about it, this point is rather hilarious. It's basically
saying that, just because we've never observed something, that's not
a good reason to believe it doesn't exist. <i>//RKBentley scratches
his head//</i> Isn't it the critics who insist we should always be
skeptical? Aren't they the ones who “withhold judgment” until
they see the evidence? Well, since we've never seen a dinosaur turn
into a bird, or a fish turn into a frog, or an ape turn into a man,
some people might question if it ever really happens. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Of
course, just because I've never seen something happen doesn't mean it
didn't happen, I'll admit. Things can happen when nobody is there to
see. But if no one anywhere has seen a certain thing, to suspect it
might not have happened is normal skepticism. To say, “it hasn't
been observed” is a fair point.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Francke,
on the other hand, wants to give the impression that science isn't
about making observations. From the article he said, </span></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>“</i></span></span></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Making
viable conclusions based on inferences from the available evidence is
not at all unscientific, and it is this reasoning that has compelled
us toward the theory of evolution.... </span></i></span></span></span><strong><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">This,
of course, is the defining characteristic of science: Not that is
observable and repeatable, but that it is testable and falsifiable.</span></i></span></span></span></strong><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">”</span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>
</i></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">[Bold
removed from original]</span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;">I
would ask Francke how does one infer anything from the evidence
unless he can observe it? How can we test and falsify theories
except by repeatable experimentation? What Francke is doing –
deliberately, I believe – i</span></span>s conflating <i>theory</i>
with <i>evidence</i>. Evolutionists do this all the time. What we
observe is <i>evidence –</i> a fossil, a rock, an animal, or
whatever. We can only examine evidence by observation. We then
invent <i>theories</i> that try to explain the evidence. In the
quote above, the <span style="color: #ff3333;"><i>“viable conclusions”</i></span>
we can infer is what other people call the <i>theory</i> of evolution
and the <span style="color: #ff3333;"><i>“available evidence”</i></span>
are the things we observe (like fossils, rock strata, ratios of
radioactive elements, etc). </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Evolutionists
understand the difference between making observations and drawing
conclusions even though they usually refuse to admit it. Did you
catch when Franke said, <span style="color: #ff3333;"><i>“</i></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">If
the idea (that “scientific evidence must be both observable and
repeatable”) were carried to its logical conclusion, it would
cripple not only the study of evolution, but every line of historical
inquiry.</span></i></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><i>”</i></span> He
has unwittingly conceded the thing that other evolutionists have
stubbornly denied – namely that there really is a distinction
between the science done in the lab and what some creationists call,
“historical science.” </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
the famous Ham v. Nye debate, Bill Nye said the following:</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #6666ff;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">So
here tonight we are going to have two stories, and we can compare Mr.
Ham's story to the story from the outside, what I call mainstream
science. The question here tonight is, does Ken Ham's creation model
hold up? Is it viable? So let me ask you, what would you be doing if
you weren't here tonight? You'd be home watching CSI TV show,
CSI-Petersburg. I think that's coming. And on CSI, there is no
distinction made between historical science and observational
science. These are constructs unique to Mr. Ham. We don't normally
have these anywhere in the world except here.</span></i></span> </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
fact that there is a qualitative difference between studying events
from the past and studying things in the present should be self
evident. Indeed, it <i>is</i> self evident and evolutionists simply avoid
acknowledging it because it clearly undermines their arguments.
It's perfectly valid to point out that evolution is a conclusion that
is being made about past events and not a thing we can observe.
Let's be very clear - <i><b>we can't observe theories</b></i>. Ever!</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Related
posts:</i></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2016/12/evolution-is-just-theory-after-all.html"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Evolution
is “just” a theory after all</span></span></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2016/03/maybe-ken-ham-is-wrong-but-bill-nye-is.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Maybe
Ken Ham is wrong but Bill Nye is more wrong!</span></a></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2012/11/science-is-only-done-in-present.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Science
is Only Done in the Present</span></a></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><strong><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>2.
You think we’ve never found a transitional fossil.</b></span></span></span></strong><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">
</span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I
wouldn't say there are <span style="font-style: normal;">no
transitional fossils</span>. Instead, I would say there are a
scarcity of unequivocal examples compared to the number that must
have existed if evolution were true. One sub-point in the
over-arching theory of evolution, for example, is that dinosaurs
evolved to become birds. According to this point, the forelimbs of
dinosaurs were modified over many generations to become wings. If
this were true, there would have to have been an enormous number of
generations between “fully arm” and “fully wing.” Indeed,
there would have been more of the part-are/part-wing forms than
either arm or wing. Charles Darwin commented about this in <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=kexEMiNwtPcC&pg=PA202&lpg=PA202&dq=But+just+in+proportion+as+this+process+of+extermination+has+acted+on+an+enormous+scale,+so+must+the+number+of+intermediate+varieties,+which+have+formerly+existed+on+the+earth,+be+truly+enormous&source=bl&ots=WOptXv-DR9&sig=BXzEjitsDMrDakweSp3j6fEJ-zU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjE2vXI5qDbAhUH7oMKHQ3EC08Q6AEIPjAD#v=onepage&q&f=false">his
book</a>. He described the hypothesized transitional forms as
<span style="color: #6666ff;"><i>“infinitely numerous connecting links”</i></span><span style="color: black;"><i>
</i></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;">and
said the following.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<em><span style="color: #6666ff;">“<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">But
just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an
enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which
have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is
not every geological formation and every stratum full of such
intermediate links?”</span></span></span></span></em></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Darwin
understood that, if his theory were true, transitional forms should
fill every stratum of rock. We shouldn't be able to turn over a
shovel of dirt without finding one. Darwin even remarked that the
absence of transitional fossils was, perhaps, <span style="color: #6666ff;"><i>“the
most obvious and gravest objection”</i></span> to his theory. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Darwin
blamed the glaring lack of transitional fossils on <span style="color: #6666ff;"><i>“the
extreme imperfection of the geological record.”</i></span> In
other words, these creatures lived, but since fossilization is allegedly such a
rare event, there just weren't any fossils made of them. How
convenient. His “just so” story, though, doesn't hold any water
when you think about what we do find in the fossil record. There are
literally trillions of fossils in the world and we've found hundreds
– maybe thousands – of dinosaurs and birds. There are plenty of
arms and plenty of wings. There are virtually none of the imagined
in-between forms. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Several
years back, National Geographic published an articled titled, <a href="https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/07/0703_020703_TVtetrapod.html">New
Fossil: Link Between Fish and Land Animals?</a> The whole point of
the article is how scientists may have <i><b>finally</b></i> found a
transitional sea-to-land fossil. Let me direct you to the following passage
from that article:</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #6666ff;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
late Devonian period has is a rich fossil history of lobed fishes....
After the Devonian the fossil record disappears, at least for a
while—20-30 million years. Only three informative fossils dating
back to this time have been found. When the fossil record resumes
roughly 25 million years later, there was already a tremendous
variety of tetrapod landforms. Ancestors of modern mammals,
amphibians, reptiles, and birds had already evolved and were
diverging along distinct branches.</span></i></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">That
paragraph is worth rereading. First, we have </span></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">“rich
fossil history”</span></i></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
of fish. Next we have </span></span></span><span style="color: #6666ff;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">“a
tremendous variety of tetrapod landforms.”</span></i></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><i><b>And we have
virtually no fossils in between!</b></i></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
Let that sink in!</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">But,
yes. Evolutionists have a few dozen, maybe even a couple of hundred
fossils they've dubbed as transitional. Big whoop. They're hardly
compelling. Sure, I could arrange some species in a way to make them
appear to be a progression. A flying squirrel could be resemble a
hypothetical transition between squirrels and bats but of course it
isn't. Likewise, there are a handful of species that could resemble
a cross between two different kinds of creatures. But that isn't
enough to fill the enormous gaps between the groups. </span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Evolutionists
need to come to grips with this weakness in their theory. If
evolution were true, transitional forms should be the rule – not
the exception. There is no </span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">“clear
progression”</span></i></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
of fish-to-frog, or dino-to-bird, or ape-to-man in the fossil record!</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Related
posts:</span></span></i></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2008/05/myth-of-sea-to-land-evolution.html"><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
Myth of Sea-to-Land Evolution</span></span></span></span></a></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2016/03/what-are-odds.html"><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">What
are the odds?</span></span></span></span></a></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2007/12/fossil-record_3148.html"><span style="color: #6666ff;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
Fossil Record</span></span></span></span></a></span></span></div>
<br />RKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-35671858423765343632018-04-30T09:42:00.000-04:002018-04-30T09:44:04.100-04:00What is morality?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/2ycmsf/atheism_and_morality/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="400" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2myWoo66h13swf7yfIyUdkDaKhzUhBg_ozXJWuX6BmmZYhzeGVa_p6NvyamUNft3ej2d4Z_6hhR15Jti-1JTLiU8UWs-AKgcGcMEhrT1p4-LEKKXqYIzNawTvFDLL6XmONY32KkMCQ0Y/s320/Morality.jpg" width="213" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
existence of objective morality is one of the most powerful arguments
for the existence of God. However, some critic don't get the
argument. Well, maybe they don't get it. Or maybe they do get it
and intentionally misrepresent the argument so they can create a
strawman. I'm not sure which. Here's an example of someone who
doesn't seem to get it:</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism out
there. It comes up in a variety of forms, but all of them are based
on the assumption that the only valid source of morality is a
theistic religion, preferably the religion of the speaker which is
usually Christianity. Thus without Christianity, people cannot live
moral lives.</span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: #282828;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
(<a href="https://www.thoughtco.com/atheists-have-no-basis-for-morality-248301">Thought.co</a>)</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Yikes!
That's bad. Rather than accusing Thought.co of deliberately
misstating the argument, I'm going to give them the benefit of the
doubt and work with the assumption that the author simply doesn't
understand the problem. In this post, I hope to bring into focus the
foolishness of believing in there can be objective morality in a
godless universe.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">First,
we have to understand what makes something wrong. I checked several
definitions and found they all suffer from the same weakness.
<a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wrong">Merriam-Webster</a>,
for example, defines “wrong” as, </span></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>“</i></span></span></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">an
injurious, unfair, or unjust act : action or conduct inflicting harm
without due provocation or just cause.</span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>”</i></span></span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
That's an OK definition, I guess, but it still doesn't answer the
question of what makes something wrong. In other words, why is it
</span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>wrong</i></span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
to be unfair or unjust? Why is it </span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>wrong</i></span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
to harm someone?</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Implicit
in every definition of wrong is the idea that something is not the
way “it ought to be.” To say it's wrong to be unfair, implies
that things ought to be fair. Get it? So for anyone to believe
something is wrong, there needs to be an objective understanding of
how that thing ought to be instead. In a godless, purposeless
universe, how would we know how things ought to be? Could it be
wrong, for example, for water to freeze at 32°F? Of course not
because there is no other objective temperature at which we could say
water should freeze instead!</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">If
the universe were undesigned and purposeless, we can only describe
how things are – not how they ought to be. If we think something
should be different, that is only a preference and not an objective
standard. Consider the candy, Starbursts. I like the red flavor.
Maybe most people like red, I don't know. But I think people who
like orange are crazy. In fact, I think people who eat orange
Starbursts are evil! Does that make any sense? It certainly
doesn't. It's gibberish. My preference is only my preference and
there is no “correct” flavor of candy. Preferences can change
over time but none are ever “right.”</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Consider
now a more substantial subject – like slavery. Most people would
agree that the type of slavery once practiced in the US was wrong.
However, it used to be legal. Obviously, there were slave owners in
the south that didn't believe it was wrong. What makes our opinion
right and theirs wrong? Some might say it's because our morals have
evolved (improved over time) since then. OK, then let's look at
another issue – abortion. In the US now, abortion is legal. What
would pro-abortion advocates say if, 100 years from now, people
viewed our generation with the same outrage that we view slave
owners? They might ask how we could allow such a cruel and immoral
thing to be practiced. Would they be wrong then? Or are we wrong
now?</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">You
see, if there is no immutable, objective standard of morality, then
issues like slavery or abortion can never be viewed as right or
wrong; they are only practiced or not practiced as our opinions
change. So when an unbeliever attacks my faith by telling me <a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2015/12/is-bible-immoral-part-3b-does-bible.html">the
Bible condones slavery</a> or that <a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2015/11/is-bible-immoral-part-2-did-god-order.html">Saul
committed genocide against the Amalekites</a>, it sounds to me like
he's speaking gibberish. He might as well be saying the Bible
condones eating orange Starbursts.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">This
brings me back to my opening point. The Thought.com article quoted
above said, “<span style="color: #ff3333;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism out
there.</span></i></span>” No Christian apologist, to my knowledge,
has ever said that atheists can't be moral. Nor has anyone said
atheists don't have a reason to be moral. What we're saying is that,
if atheism were true, then there can be no such thing as morality.
There are only shifting preferences that are about as objective as
the correct flavor of gum. When atheists claim to be moral, or share
their opinions of Christian morality, they are acting in ways not
consistent with their stated belief. It's irrational. It is like a
person who claims to not believe in gravity but still knows he would
die if he jumped off a building.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Genesis
1:31 says, </span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>“</i></span></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">And
God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, </span></i></span></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">it
was</span></i></span></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
very good.</span></i></span></span><span style="color: #ff3333;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>”
</i></span></span><span style="font-size: small;">God created a “very good” world
so we know that there is a way things ought to be. Sin is when we
disobey God. When we sin, we are judged. The Bible says the wages
of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Sin and death were not part of God's
original creation. They are not the way things ought to be. There
can only be such things as good and evil because there is a God!
It's not that I believe in God because it sort of make sense. I know
there is a God because that is the only thing that makes sense!</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">Further
reading:</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2013/04/morals-are-silly.html"><span style="font-size: small;">Morals
are Silly!</span></a></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2014/04/utilitarianism-poor-substitute-for.html"><span style="font-size: small;">Utilitarianism:
A poor substitute for morality</span></a></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2012/04/logical-failings-of-dawkins-and-other.html"><span style="font-size: small;">The
Logical Failings of Dawkins and other New Atheists</span></a></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2016/09/five-quick-arguments-for-existence-of.html"><span style="font-size: small;">Five
quick arguments for the existence of God</span></a></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2011/05/funny-thing-about-science.html"><span style="font-size: small;">The
Funny Thing about Science</span></a></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2011/05/cool-thing-about-christianity.html"><span style="font-size: small;">The
Cool Thing about Christianity</span></a></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<br />RKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-31784437363444281092018-03-02T08:49:00.002-05:002018-03-02T08:49:43.932-05:00I'm an equal opportunity opponent of despots!<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I
heard a few days ago that Lt. Governor, Casey Cagle, threatened to
use his position as president of the state Senate to kill a proposed
sales tax exemption on jet fuel. The move was aimed at Delta Air
Lines after their recent announcement they would no longer offer
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">discounts to NRA members. Then, this
morning, I hear that lawmakers officially struck down the exemption
yesterday. From <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-delta-air-tax/georgia-lawmakers-kill-proposed-tax-break-in-dig-at-delta-over-nra-fight-idUSKCN1GD6M7">Reuters.com</a>,
we read the following:</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #ff3333;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Delta
said it was ending a discount program for NRA members and had asked
the gun rights group to remove its information from the group’s
website after the Feb. 14 slaying of 17 students.... Georgia
Republicans had criticized the airline’s move to cut its ties to
the NRA. They were led by Lieutenant Governor Casey Cagle, president
of the state senate, who vowed to kill any tax legislation that
benefited Delta. The bill that passed the Georgia House of
Representatives and Senate on Thursday had previously included tax
exemption language that had been projected to save Delta some $40
million a year in jet fuel tax.</span></i></span><span style="color: #313132;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/26/us/delta-nra-georgia-tax-cut.html"><img border="0" data-original-height="512" data-original-width="768" height="425" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxveyNLqxgT2Fjp1FzejTD3e9jqxiReH-tPaSZF-XHYQEqKxV36HGWVZSmKogUBHbRd0On2XxdvJnaWs6KMOuULAjNfte32wuVN6uZwrQiGxmgF74Pw2QnWpowRCSrZNw7XyPnyk7IlQw/s640/Delta.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Really, people? OK,
I know this isn't rocket science but come on! The first amendment is supposed
to protect us against government retribution when we speak out on
certain issues. If the NRA speaks out against gun control, people
have the right to protest them. If a company like Delta Air Lines
decides not to offer discounts to members of the NRA, that's their
right. I don't have to like it. I </span>don't have to fly on
Delta. I can go on social media and tell everyone who will listen
that they should boycott Delta because of their actions toward the
NRA. That is what freedom looks like. When government officials use the power of their office to punish a company exercising its God
given rights of speech and association, that is what tyranny looks
like.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">A
straightforward reading of the First Amendment shows that it
specifically forbids the government from infringing on our right to
free speech or association. In other words, the First Amendment
doesn't restrict what Delta can do or what the NRA or what I can do;
it restricts what the government can do. I will also remind you that
we're talking about gun control – a heated political issue. So GA
Republicans are specifically punishing Delta Airlines because of its
political speech! How much more blatant of a violation does this
have to be before more conservatives speak out against it?!</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">It
was just a few years ago when <a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2014/12/more-liberal-bigotry.html"><span style="text-decoration: none;">I
spoke out</span></a> against my own state of KY for trying to take
away a sales tax exemption from the Ark Encounter. How is this any
different? It was Democrats then but I'm an equal opportunity
opponent of despots. As they say, <i>"What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."</i> I do not overlook tyranny just because the
tyrants have a little “R” after their names. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">People
have the right to be stupid and Delta has the right to offend
millions of NRA members. They will have to live with their decision
when the offended members stop flying on Delta or start calling for
boycotts. But when they suffer <i>political</i> reprisal because of
their position, they will have an ally in me. I do not want the
government choosing sides in political debates, even if they happen to be on my side this
time.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Further
reading:</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2014/12/more-liberal-bigotry.html">More
Liberal Bigotry</a></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2012/08/no-christian-owned-businesses-allowed.html">No
Christian Owned Businesses Allowed In Boston!</a></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2016/04/liberals-dont-understand-rights.html">Liberals
don't understand rights</a></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2015/01/too-quick-to-forgive.html">Too
Quick to Forgive</a></span></span></div>
RKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-55386483646599901442018-02-26T09:19:00.001-05:002018-02-26T09:19:57.371-05:00Even extraordinary claims require only ordinary evidence!<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">A couple of
weeks ago, I wrote a post describing how some critics of Christianity
use demands for “evidence” as a way of dodging tough questions
rather than dealing with them. In that post, I described a
hypothetical example of two strangers: one tells me he has a pet dog
and the other tells me he has a pet sloth. In these cases, I would
be apt to believe the claim to own a dog but be skeptical of the
claim to own a sloth. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_j2HRofYf9m0XdAucy-kaDmuy5J2uxBzAQw010n3maRwJiWmsT0Y4ecCN-d5YiT8bi1PMB4uuonCp5tPt8thqPF1gYddnCoilzlF-RBVs56QX45qQH_kbLI2XPO6PrESzhIEJZy_zYIo/s1600/Extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-evidence..jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1000" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_j2HRofYf9m0XdAucy-kaDmuy5J2uxBzAQw010n3maRwJiWmsT0Y4ecCN-d5YiT8bi1PMB4uuonCp5tPt8thqPF1gYddnCoilzlF-RBVs56QX45qQH_kbLI2XPO6PrESzhIEJZy_zYIo/s400/Extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-evidence..jpg" width="250" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">A few
people have tried to point out to me that my heightened suspicion of
the claim to own a sloth actually contradicts a point I made later in
my post. Carl Sagan made a famous claim that, <span style="color: #ff3333;"><i>“Extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence.”</i></span> By me being
more critical of the claim to own a sloth than a dog, they say I'm
engaging in exactly the kind of skepticism Sagan said was necessary
before believing an extraordinary claim. I don't think so, but since
a few people have accused me of the same thing, I thought I'd use
this as an opportunity to expound my earlier point.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">First off,
Sagan's claim is self-contradicting. If it were true, then where is
the evidence for Sagan's claim? I'm not even asking for
extraordinary evidence, mind you. I mean any <i><b>scientific</b></i>
evidence whatsoever to justify the <span style="font-style: normal;">claim</span>
that claims require evidence? If Sagan were here and I asked him to
present the evidence for his claim, I'm sure he would resort to logic
and reason which proves my point. Through logic and reason, we can
make judgments about the truthfulness of a claim – <i>even a claim
for which there may be no scientific evidence!</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
In my example about the sloth, you will notice that not once did I
demand to see the sloth. My point in asking more questions was so
that I might judge the truthfulness of the claim using only my skills
of logic and reason. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;">But
let's examine that a little but further. What if I were an especially
stubborn skeptic and demand to see a picture of the sloth? If he
pulled out a photo of him holding his sloth, that really still
wouldn't prove anything. How do I know he didn't have that picture
taken some exotic petting zoo somewhere? How do I know it's not a
Photoshop? Maybe he could take me to his home and show the sloth in
person. It's still not enough because, if I were especially
bullheaded, I could ask for proof that this was his home. You say he
has the deed? So what?! Maybe he's leasing part of his property to
someone else who actually owns the sloth! No matter what evidence he
shows me, I could sit cross armed and skeptical saying, “That's not
enough evidence!”</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;">This
is my frustration with many unbelievers. I try to give reasoned
arguments and ask they consider them objectively yet they respond
only with a demand for </span><i>more evidence</i><span style="font-style: normal;">.
For some people, I could say that it would take God appearing to
them personally to make them believe but I know even that wouldn't be
enough because they could still dismiss God's appearance as a
hallucination. For someone who truly doesn't want to believe, no
amount of evidence – not even </span><i>extraordinary</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
evidence – is sufficient.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;">Now
back up a minute. Remember about the person claiming to own a dog?
If I were just as skeptical of his claim, what evidence might he
produce that is different than the evidence that I demanded from the
owner of a sloth? In other words, how is the evidence that proves
someone owns a dog substantially different than the evidence that
proves someone owns a sloth? If I am truly a “blank slate” and
will never believe something unless I have evidence for it, then the
evidence necessary to prove someone owns a dog need not be </span><i>any</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
different than the evidence necessary to prove someone owns a sloth.
</span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;">To
prove conclusively a person owns a dog or a sloth or even a
stegosaurus, it would take roughly the same evidence: 1) look at his
address on his ID, 2) drive to that address, and 3) see if the animal
is there. One claim may seem more extraordinary than another, but
the evidence to prove any of the claims is rather ordinary. The
critic might ask, “what if he doesn't really own the animal? Maybe
he's caring for a friend's or relative's pet.” Regardless,
whatever could be said of a pet sloth could also be said of a pet
dog. The evidence to prove either is still the same.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;">What
if I claimed to own a Big Foot? Simple – drive to my house and see
it for yourself. What if I claimed to own a unicorn? Drive to my
house and see it for yourself. What if I claimed to have a flying
saucer in my backyard? Drive to my house and see if for yourself.
What if I claimed to have created a to-scale model of the Grand
Canyon in my backyard? Drive to my house and see it for yourself.
What is so “extraordinary” about the evidence that could prove
any of these extraordinary claims? </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;">Besides
the famous quote we've discussed here, Carl Sagan also left us the
analogy, <a href="http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm">The
Dragon In My Garage</a>. In that story, he pretended to have dragon
in his garage and invited his skeptical friend to see it. Of course,
the garage appeared to be empty. Sagan explained the dragon was
invisible. The friend thought of ways to see if the dragon was
there: spray paint the dragon to make it visible, sprinkle powder on
the floor to see its footprints, or use a sensor to detect its
flames. One by one, Sagan explained why none of these would work. A
subtle irony here is that the skeptic only seems to be looking for
ordinary evidence: he wants to see the dragon! Owning a dragon is an
extraordinary claim. According to Sagan, it should require
extraordinary evidence to substantiate that claim but in this
analogy, merely seeing the dragon seems to be enough. So even Sagan,
who made this famous quote, seems to understand that the proof for
owning a dragon really isn't any different than the proof for owning
a dog.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;">In
Isaiah 1:18, God says, </span><i>“Come now, and let us reason
together.”</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> To have the
clearest picture of reality requires that we employ our God given
gifts of reason and deduction. For someone to set the ridiculously
high standard of evidence before believing anything is a guarantee to
have a distorted view of reality.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;">The
word “extraordinary” is enormously subjective. It describes more
about the person hearing the claim than the nature of the claim
itself. When a claim is labeled, “extraordinary,” it means the
person hearing the claim has a hard time believing it. Maybe he just
doesn't want to believe it. But even extraordinary claims require
only ordinary evidence. To say one claim requires “extraordinary”
evidence simply means the skeptic is likely to reject most of the
evidence you present because of his own incredulity.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;">Further
reading:</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2018/02/when-asking-for-evidence-becomes-red.html"><span style="font-style: normal;">When
asking for evidence becomes a red herring</span></a></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2013/06/carl-sagans-invisible-dragon.html"><span style="font-style: normal;">Carl
Sagan's Invisible Dragon</span></a></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2017/11/how-many-jellybeans-are-in-this-jar.html"><span style="font-style: normal;">How
many jellybeans are in this jar?</span></a></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2017/03/bill-nye-on-video-lying-about-evidence.html">Bill
Nye on video lying about evidence!</a></span></span></div>
RKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.com3